G.R. No. A.C. No. 6249; October 14, 2004
Social Security Commission, complainant, vs. Atty. Napoleon Corral, respondent.

FACTS

The Social Security Commission filed a verified complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Napoleon Corral for preparing, notarizing, and filing three separate complaints with the SSS Regional Office in Bacolod City on behalf of individuals who did not personally appear before him. The first complaint, filed in April 1986, was purportedly verified by Hermogenes Bareno, who had died two years prior. The second, filed in September 1987, was for Domingo Panadero, who had also died long before the filing. A supplemental complaint alleged a third instance in July 1990 for Catalino de la Cruz, who later executed an affidavit stating he had never been to Bacolod City to verify such a complaint and did not know the respondent.
In his defense, Atty. Corral argued he could not be faulted as he relied on the identification documents presented by the impostors, such as an SSS card or form, claiming he had sufficiently complied with his obligations. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, after investigation, recommended his disbarment for violating his duties as a lawyer and notary public.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Napoleon Corral should be held administratively liable for misconduct in the performance of his notarial and professional duties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and held Atty. Corral administratively liable. The legal logic centers on the grave responsibility of a notary public, a duty impressed with public interest. Under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging a document has personally appeared before him, is known to him, and has freely executed the instrument. The respondent certified the personal appearances of Bareno, Panadero, and de la Cruz when, in fact, the first two were deceased and the third denied ever appearing. His reliance on presented identification was grossly insufficient and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the solemnity of the notarial act.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless routine; it converts a private document into a public instrument, lending it prima facie evidence of its authenticity. By his actions, the respondent undermined public confidence in notarial documents. As a lawyer, he violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate upholding the law and prohibiting dishonest or deceitful conduct. His indifference betrayed a failure to observe the basic requirements of his office, casting serious doubt on his fitness for the legal profession. Consequently, the Court indefinitely suspended his notarial commission and directed him to show cause why he should not be disbarred.