G.R. No. 12196 . September 03, 2018.
PABLITO L. MIRANDA, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, SR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Pablito L. Miranda, Jr. filed an administrative case for disbarment and perpetual disqualification as a notary public against Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. The complaint alleged that respondent notarized documents in 2010, including a Special Power of Attorney and an Application for Business Permit, despite his notarial commission for San Pedro, Laguna having expired in 2005. Complainant presented certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro confirming the expiration and that the SPA was not on file. Complainant further alleged respondent maintained multiple notarial offices in San Pedro, Laguna, failed to register only one office, keep a single notarial register, file monthly reports, and surrender his seal upon commission expiry. He also accused respondent of authorizing unlicensed persons to perform notarial acts and notarizing documents without proper identification of the parties involved.
In his defense, respondent claimed he was a duly commissioned notary public for Biñan, Laguna in 2010, submitting a certification from the RTC of Biñan. He later argued in a motion for reconsideration that he maintained only one notarial office in Biñan, managed with a partner, and that the San Pedro office was owned by his son. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors initially found him liable, suspending him from law practice for one year and perpetually disqualifying him as a notary. However, subsequent certifications from the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) revealed a critical fact: respondent had been suspended from the practice of law since 2001 in a separate case, and this suspension had never been lifted. The OBC also certified he was not a member of the Philippine Bar, and evidence showed he continued to practice law by accepting fees and representing clients.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. should be held administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Rules and for illegally practicing law while under suspension.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings with modification, imposing disbarment. On the notarial violations, the Court found respondent guilty of notarizing documents outside his territorial jurisdiction. His commission was for Biñan, Laguna, yet he notarized documents in his offices in San Pedro, Laguna, a clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which confine a notary’s authority to the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. His notarization of an application with a fictitious address and inadequate proof of identity further demonstrated gross negligence, undermining the integrity of notarial acts. More egregiously, the OBC certifications proved respondent was under an indefinite suspension from the practice of law since 2001. Despite this, he continued to act as a lawyer by maintaining a law office, accepting legal fees, and representing clients. This constitutes blatant illegal practice of law in defiance of a Court order. Such conduct is a gross violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, demonstrating utter disrespect for the law and the legal profession. Given the gravity of practicing law while suspended, which is tantamount to willful disobedience, the Court deemed disbarment as the appropriate penalty. His notarial misconduct, compounded by this defiant illegal practice, warranted his removal from the Roll of Attorneys to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.