AC 12552; (December, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12552. December 05, 2022.
Judge Adelbert S. Santillan, Complainant, vs. Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi, Respondent.
FACTS
Sometime in March 2019, a request for a Certificate of Notarial Act revealed that respondent Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi had notarized a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment. Executive Judge Adelbert S. Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi performed these notarial acts in March 2019 despite his notarial commission having expired in December 2018. Judge Santillan directed Atty. Solilapsi to explain. In his Letter-Explanation, Atty. Solilapsi claimed the documents were notarized by his law office in his absence and without his knowledge or permission. Judge Santillan reported the incident and an investigation ensued. The investigation revealed that the two subject documents were the 208th and 331st documents, respectively, that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized after the lapse of his commission, totaling more than 300 legal documents notarized with an expired commission. Judge Santillan recommended a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court treated the report as an administrative complaint. Atty. Solilapsi did not file a comment.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for having notarized more than 300 legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission.
RULING
Yes. The Court found Atty. Solilapsi GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and performing notarial acts without a valid commission is prohibited. The Court did not find credible his excuse that his staff notarized the documents without his knowledge, noting it is contrary to human experience to be unaware of over 300 notarial acts done in his name and office. Following applicable jurisprudence for the gravity of the violation (notarizing over 300 documents with an expired commission), the Court IMPOSED the penalties of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years, revocation of his incumbent notarial commission if any, and PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION from being commissioned as a notary public, with a stern warning.