A.C. No. 10793, September 16, 2020
Atty. Bryan S. Lim and Nestor R. Wong, Complainants, vs. Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. for violations of the Notarial Rules, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and immorality. Nestor R. Wong, acting as an agent for his sisters, appointed a sub-agent, Raquel Go Esturco, to sell properties. On January 3, 2012, Nestor signed a Deed of Sale prepared and notarized by respondent. Later, Nestor discovered that Esturco possessed several other deeds of sale concerning the same property, including some notarized by respondent in favor of Esturco and respondent’s own son, Venus Baybayan Tabiliran. Separately, Atty. Bryan S. Lim, the Acting Registrar of Deeds, alleged that respondent notarized documents with an expired commission, failed to submit certified true copies of notarized documents to the Clerk of Court, and falsified documents by notarizing them outside the presence of the parties.
Respondent defended himself by claiming the parties were aware he was awaiting commission renewal, that Nestor voluntarily signed the documents in his office, and that the contracts were not immoral. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for multiple notarial violations but found insufficient evidence for the immorality charge. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the recommended penalty to disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with public interest, converting private documents into public documents entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must therefore observe the basic requirements of the Notarial Rules with utmost care. The evidence established that respondent notarized documents without a valid commission, as his notarial commission had lapsed during the periods he performed the acts. He also failed to submit the required certified true copies of notarized documents to the Clerk of Court. Furthermore, he notarized documents where his own son was a party and privy to the transaction, creating a clear conflict of interest. These acts constitute violations of the Notarial Rules and the Lawyer’s Oath, demonstrating a disregard for his solemn duties.
The Court found the penalty of disbarment too severe for the violations, as there was no showing of malice or fraudulent intent in the notarization of the deeds of sale where his son was a party. Applying precedents, the Court ruled that suspension is the appropriate penalty for such notarial infractions. However, given the gravity of repeatedly notarizing without a commission and the conflict of interest, a significant suspension is warranted. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years, his notarial commission (if any) was revoked, and he was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public.