G.R. No. 216894, July 14, 2021
Felix C. Montinola III, Complainant, vs. Atty. Juan T. Rubrico, Atty. Daisy D. Montinola, and Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Felix C. Montinola III, a legal heir of the late Felix Montinola, Sr., received a demand letter dated August 7, 2014 from Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr., acting for the other heirs, demanding he vacate a lot or buy out his co-heirs’ shares. Attached was a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate notarized on February 5, 2014 by Atty. Juan T. Rubrico. Complainant asserted the deed was void ab initio as not all parties signed it. Atty. Rubrico initially issued a certification on September 8, 2014, denying he notarized the deed and claiming his secretary forged his signature, but retracted this two days later, admitting he notarized it without the presence of all signatories as an accommodation to Atty. Daisy D. Montinola, a co-heir and fellow lawyer. Complainant filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for revocation of Atty. Rubrico’s notarial commission and disciplinary action against all respondents. The RTC revoked Atty. Rubrico’s commission and prohibited him from being a notary public for three months, while dismissing the case against Atty. Tan, Jr. and the heirs, and reminding Atty. Montinola to be circumspect. Complainant’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court treated the petition as an administrative complaint and referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Board of Governors recommended suspending Atty. Rubrico from law practice for six months, sternly warning Atty. Montinola, and dismissing the case against Atty. Tan, Jr.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for violations related to the notarization of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and recommendation. Atty. Juan T. Rubrico violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Notarial Law (Act No. 2103) by notarizing the deed without the personal presence of the signatories, failing to identify them through competent evidence, and certifying false acknowledgments. His actions undermined public confidence in notarized documents. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Daisy D. Montinola, as a lawyer who facilitated the notarization, violated professional ethics by influencing a notary public to commit misconduct; she was sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr. was not administratively liable, as his act of sending a demand letter with the attached deed did not constitute defiance of the law or lessen confidence in the legal system; the complaint against him was dismissed. The Court emphasized that notarization converts private documents into public documents, making adherence to notarial rules essential to preserve their integrity.