A.C. No. 11428, November 13, 2023
Maria Brozas-Garri, Complainant, vs. Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Brozas-Garri filed an administrative complaint against her former counsel, Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago, for breach of duty and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The charges stemmed from three acts: first, his failure to return an owner’s duplicate certificate of title he borrowed; second, his preparation and notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing his wife to lease Brozas-Garri’s property, despite the SPA bearing Brozas-Garri’s forged signature while she was abroad; and third, his alleged failure to file an appellee’s brief and render case status reports in a separate litigation. Atty. Reago defended himself by claiming the title had been returned via the complainant’s sister, the SPA was prepared upon instruction and with her knowledge as she received rental benefits, and the status report charge was a ploy to remove him as counsel after he rendered uncompensated services.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the first and third charges moot or unsubstantiated but found merit in the second charge concerning the SPA. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this finding with modification, emphasizing the gravity of the notarization violation. It recommended a two-year suspension from law practice, a two-year disqualification as a notary public, and revocation of his notarial commission.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and imposed the recommended penalties. The Court’s ruling focused exclusively on Atty. Reago’s misconduct regarding the notarization of the SPA. Notarization is a public function imbued with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandate that a notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the signatory at the time of notarization. Atty. Reago admitted preparing and notarizing the SPA despite knowing Brozas-Garri was in the United States and could not have personally appeared before him. His act of notarizing a document with a forged signature, without the signatory’s presence, constituted a clear violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (specifically Canon II on integrity).
The Court rejected Atty. Reago’s defenses that the SPA was authorized and that Brozas-Garri benefited from the lease. The administrative case concerned the propriety of his notarial act, not the validity of the underlying contract. By notarizing a document without the requisite personal presence, he engaged in dishonesty and undermined the integrity of the notarial process. Such acts erode public confidence in the legal profession. The penalties of suspension, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being a notary public are commensurate to the offense, serving to protect the public and uphold the standards of the legal profession.