A.C. No. 10150. September 21, 2016
Gina E. Endaya, Complainant, vs. Atty. Edgardo O. Palay, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Gina E. Endaya against Atty. Edgardo O. Palay, a notary public in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Endaya alleged that on July 27, 2004, Atty. Palay notarized a Deed of Sale involving eight parcels of land, which was purportedly executed and thumbmarked by her father, Engr. Atilano AB. Villaos. Endaya contended that it was impossible for Villaos to have personally appeared before Atty. Palay in Palawan on that date, as he was confined at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City from May 27 to August 17, 2004. She supported this with an affidavit from a physician stating Villaos was of unsound mind and under intensive care during that period. Villaos passed away shortly after, on August 28, 2004.
In his defense, Atty. Palay claimed he was approached by Villaos’ driver in May 2004 and that he met Villaos in a car, where the ailing man begged to affix his thumbmark as he could no longer sign. This account was directly contradicted by the sworn statements of the attending physician, who detailed Villaos’ grave condition, and by the driver himself, who denied ever approaching Atty. Palay for notarization. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Atty. Palay liable and suspended him from the practice of law for one year, with perpetual disqualification as a notary public.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Edgardo O. Palay should be held administratively liable for his actions in notarizing the Deed of Sale.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Palay is administratively liable. The Supreme Court denied his second motion for reconsideration, which sought to lift his suspension from the practice of law. The Court emphasized that the duties of a notary public are inseparable from the practice of law, as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice restrict commissions to lawyers in good standing. By notarizing a document without the personal presence of the purported signatory, Atty. Palay violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His act of acknowledging the deed made it falsely appear that Villaos personally appeared before him.
Furthermore, by fabricating a story about meeting Villaos in a car—a claim disproven by credible evidence—Atty. Palay engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to dispute the IBP’s findings was deemed an admission of the charges. This dishonesty reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. Accordingly, the Court modified the penalty, suspending Atty. Palay from the practice of law for six months, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court also found complainant’s counsel, Atty. Paul Resurreccion, guilty of indirect contempt for disobeying court orders and fined him P5,000.00.