G.R. No. 5858 ; December 11, 2003
Rogelio R. Santos, Sr., complainant, vs. Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rogelio Santos, Sr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo Beltran. The primary allegation was that respondent notarized a Deed of Donation, executed by complainant’s mother in favor of her nine other children, without the personal appearance of all the parties involved. Complainant submitted affidavits from two siblings stating they signed the deed at their homes, not at the lawyer’s office. He also presented official travel records proving several donees were abroad on the stated date of notarization, making their appearance impossible.
The complaint further accused respondent of other misconducts: appearing as a private prosecutor in a criminal case without engagement; representing conflicting interests in an ejectment case by acting against a former client; and improperly acquiring properties that were part of his clients’ estate through insidious means. Respondent denied all allegations, asserting the due execution of the deed and presenting his secretary’s affidavit, though it admitted a clerical error in the date. He justified his other actions as proper and denied any conflict of interest or illicit property acquisition.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran should be held administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating his notarial duties but dismissed the other charges for lack of evidence. The Court emphasized the solemnity of a notary public’s function. The travel documents conclusively proved that several signatories to the deed were not in the Philippines on August 18, 1994, the date it was notarized. This made their personal appearance before the notary public physically impossible. Respondent’s reliance on his secretary’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut this official evidence. By notarizing the document without the required personal presence, respondent violated the Notarial Law and committed gross misconduct, undermining public confidence in notarized documents.
Regarding the other charges, the Court found them unsubstantiated. His appearance in the criminal case was a single act to defend himself from allegations linked to the notarized deed and did not constitute unauthorized practice. The representation in the ejectment case involved a former client, but the attorney-client relationship had already terminated upon the execution of a final judgment in that prior case, thus no conflict existed. The property acquisition was from a corporate seller, not directly from the litigating spouses, and complainant failed to prove it was acquired fraudulently. The penalty was a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.