A.C. No. 4758 April 30, 1999
Victor Nunga vs. Atty. Venancio Viray

FACTS

Complainant Victor Nunga, president of Masantol Rural Bank, sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Venancio Viray for grave misconduct. The complaint alleged that Viray, who was the bank’s legal counsel and a stockholder, notarized a 1987 Deed of Absolute Sale involving a bank property sold to his minor son, Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, without a notarial commission for that year. The document facilitated the transfer, and the title was later used by Viray and his wife to mortgage the property in 1991. An annotation for the cancellation of this mortgage in 1991 was also entered in Viray’s notarial register despite an alleged lack of commission for that year.
Respondent Viray claimed he had been continuously commissioned as a notary public since 1965 and argued the complaint was leverage due to other pending cases. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigation, through Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, found certifications from the Clerk of Court of Pampanga showing Viray had commissions only for specific periods (1981-1982, 1983-1984, and 1995-1996) and no record for 1987 and 1991. Complainant submitted this evidence, while respondent failed to submit his memorandum or countervailing proof.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Venancio Viray should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents in 1987 and 1991 without a valid notarial commission.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court concurred with the IBP’s finding that Viray lacked a notarial commission in 1987 and 1991 when he notarized the questioned documents. Performing notarial acts without a commission constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws. It also involves deliberate falsehood, as it imparts an appearance of official authenticity where none exists.
This misconduct violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 7, which mandates a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The act in 1987 was aggravated because the transaction benefited his son, who was then a minor (18 years old) under the applicable Civil Code provision, as the age of majority was 21 before Republic Act No. 6809 took effect in 1989.
The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ recommended penalty. Instead of a three-month suspension, the Court imposed a stricter penalty: Atty. Venancio Viray is BARRED from being commissioned as a notary public for THREE (3) years, his present commission (if any) is revoked, and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) years, effective immediately.