G.R. No. A.C. No. 12709. September 08, 2020
LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Lilia Yusay-Cordero discovered an annotation on her land title referencing a “Deed of Portion Sale” dated December 11, 2003, which she did not execute. The deed was notarized by respondent Atty. Juanito Amihan, Jr. Upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Lilia obtained certifications stating that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public for the year 2003 and that no copy of the subject deed was on file. Consequently, Lilia filed an administrative complaint for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In his defense, Atty. Amihan, Jr. claimed he was authorized to notarize in 2003. He presented imprints of his notarial rubber stamps bearing details for 2003, a court recommendation letter stating his appointment expired on December 31, 2003, and documents related to his 2004 notarial commission. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found these insufficient to prove a valid 2003 commission, giving more weight to the Clerk of Court’s official certification and its own confirmation with the RTC that he had no commission for that year.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Juanito Amihan, Jr. is administratively liable for notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Amihan, Jr. is administratively liable. Notarization is a public function imbued with substantial public interest. It converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. The authority to perform notarial acts is conferred solely by a valid notarial commission. Performing notarization without such commission constitutes a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law, and amounts to engaging in deliberate falsehood, which is prohibited under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
The Court upheld the IBP’s findings. The respondent’s evidence—rubber stamp imprints and a recommendation letter—did not constitute proof of a valid commission. The conclusive evidence was the certification from the Clerk of Court and the investigating commissioner’s direct confirmation with the RTC, which established that he had no notarial commission in 2003. His act of notarizing the deed without authority violated his oath and ethical rules. Considering it was his first offense and involved a single document, the Court modified the penalty. Atty. Amihan, Jr.’s notarial commission, if any, was immediately revoked. He was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year and suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning against repetition.