A.C. No. 10928, December 09, 2020
Judge Juanita T. Guerrero, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a letter-report by Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero, who discovered that respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron had notarized documents after the expiration of her notarial commission on December 31, 2014. An inventory by the Clerk of Court revealed that respondent had submitted notarial reports for acts performed in 2015. Furthermore, the expiry dates on the notarial stamps of the documents were tampered with; the year “2014” was altered to read “2015.”
In her defense, respondent claimed she acted in good faith, believing her two-year commission, received on September 27, 2013, was valid for the years 2014 and 2015. She apologized, stated it was her first commission, and argued that her continued filing of notarial reports evidenced her good faith. The Executive Judge found respondent notarized 28 documents after her commission expired and recommended a two-year disqualification from being a notary public.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron should be held administratively liable for performing notarial acts without a valid commission and for tampering with notarial stamps.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with public interest, converting private documents into public instruments entitled to full faith and credit. A lawyer must perform notarial duties with utmost care, and acting without a commission is a serious violation. The Court rejected respondent’s claim of good faith. Her appointment document clearly stated her term ended on December 31, 2014. Most damning was the deliberate alteration of the expiry dates on the stamps from “2014” to “2015,” which demonstrated bad faith and an intent to mislead. This act of tampering constantly reminded her of the true expiration date, negating any assertion of innocent mistake.
By notarizing without authority and falsifying the dates, respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, her lawyer’s oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Given the aggravating circumstance of tampering, the Court deemed the recommended penalty insufficient. Following precedent for such egregious violations, respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years and PERMANENTLY BARRED from being commissioned as a notary public.