A.C. No. 13378, May 19, 2025
Loreta Hedocil-Menioria, Complainant, vs. Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Loreta Hedocil-Menioria filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta for alleged violations of his duties as a notary public. The complaint centered on a Partition Agreement dated November 17, 2017, which respondent notarized. The document was purportedly executed by complainant’s brothers, Melecio Hedocil and Artemio Hedocil. However, complainant alleged, and substantiated with death certificates, that both Melecio and Artemio had died years before the signing—in 1984 and 2005, respectively. Complainant asserted that respondent notarized the document without requiring the supposed signatories to present any competent evidence of identification, a clear breach of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
In his defense, respondent denied liability, arguing that a related criminal case had been dismissed, questioning complainant’s standing, claiming the wives of the deceased brothers did not disclose their deaths, denying the notarial signature was his, and invoking the best evidence rule due to the absence of the original document. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty, recommending a two-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document signed by individuals already deceased.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty and clarified the applicable evidentiary standard. The Court held that the quantum of proof in lawyer disciplinary cases is substantial evidence, not preponderance of evidence. Substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla and is adequate for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion, was amply present.
The core of respondent’s liability lies in the fundamental nature of notarization. It is not a mere ministerial act but a public function imbued with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument. By notarizing a document purportedly signed by individuals long dead, respondent exhibited gross negligence and violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His failure to verify the identities and competency of the signatories—a basic duty—directly contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (requiring a lawyer to do no falsehood) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found his defenses unmeritorious; the dismissal of a criminal case is inconsequential in an administrative proceeding with a different burden of proof, and the certified true copy of the notarized document was sufficient for evaluation.
Considering the gravity of notarizing for deceased persons, which undermines the integrity of notarial documents and the legal system, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission (if any), disqualification from being a notary public for two years, and a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (PhP 40,000.00). The Court noted that as respondent had already been disbarred in a separate matter, these penalties would be considered should he apply for reinstatement.