AC 10132; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10132. March 24, 2015.
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO represented by DAVID ALILANO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent.
FACTS
The complainants, heirs of Pedro Alilano, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice. The spouses Pedro and Florentina Alilano were holders of Original Certificate of Title No. P-23261 covering a parcel of land. On March 31, 1984, and September 12, 1984, Absolute Deeds of Sale were executed by the spouses in favor of Ramon Examen (respondent’s brother) and his wife Edna, both notarized by Atty. Examen. The heirs later filed a recovery of possession case, during which Atty. Examen presented the deeds as evidence. The complainants alleged that Atty. Examen violated notarial law by notarizing documents where a party was his relative, knowingly used a falsified residence certificate number for Ramon Examen (which actually belonged to Florentina), falsely acknowledged the personal appearance of witnesses, and presented the falsified documents in court, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Examen defended himself by arguing that the prohibition on notarizing documents for relatives under the Spanish Notarial Law was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, that the use of another’s residence certificate was done in good faith due to office practice, and that the complaint was barred by prescription under IBP rules. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Examen liable and initially recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to suspension from law practice for one year and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Roberto E. Examen should be held administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Examen is administratively liable. The Supreme Court modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission (if still existing), and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years.
The Court held:
1. Prescription Does Not Apply: Disbarment cases have no prescriptive period. The Court reiterated that erring lawyers cannot escape liability merely due to lapse of time, as this would undermine the integrity of the legal profession. The IBP rule proposing a two-year prescriptive period was declared void.
2. Applicability of Notarial Law: The Spanish Notarial Law of 1889, which prohibited notarizing documents for relatives within the fourth civil degree, was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Thus, at the time of notarization (1984), Atty. Examen was not legally disqualified from notarizing the deeds despite his relationship to the vendee. However, the 2004 Revised Rules on Notarial Practice later reinstated such disqualification.
3. Breach of Notarial Duties: Notaries public must perform their duties with diligence and utmost care. Atty. Examen failed in this duty by not verifying the residence certificate details, resulting in the use of Florentina’s certificate for Ramon Examen, and by not ensuring the personal appearance of witnesses. His claim of “office practice” did not excuse his negligence. Notarization converts private documents into public instruments, requiring notaries to uphold public trust.
4. Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: By presenting the falsified deeds in court, Atty. Examen violated his oath as a lawyer and specific canons of the CPR, including rules against unlawful conduct, falsehood, and misleading the court. His actions demonstrated a lack of candor and good faith.
5. Penalty: The Court considered the IBP’s recommended penalty but emphasized the gravity of Atty. Examen’s negligence and misconduct. The penalty of one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of notarial commission, and two-year disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public was deemed appropriate to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.