G.R. No. A.C. No. 6470 July 8, 2014
Mercedita De Jesus, Complainant, vs. Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mercedita De Jesus filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit for grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, and unworthiness to become an officer of the Court. The complaint alleged three specific instances of misconduct: (1) On March 1, 2002, respondent drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage that falsely named complainant as the “absolute and registered owner” of a public market stall, which was government-owned, leading to a perjury and collection suit against complainant. (2) In September 1999, respondent notarized a lease agreement without the signatures of the lessees, and complainant only discovered this when she requested a copy from respondent. (3) On February 17, 1998, respondent drafted and notarized a sale agreement for a property covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) without advising complainant of the property’s non-alienability period. Complainant later submitted additional evidence, including unsigned Special Powers of Attorney notarized by respondent.
In her defense, respondent argued that the mortgage contract’s erroneous phrasing was an inadvertent copy-paste error, and complainant had read and signed it. She claimed the lease agreement copy given to the court was a new document prepared upon complainant’s request, with the promise it would be signed and returned. Regarding the CLOA sale, she asserted complainant, as an experienced broker, needed no advice and the agreement noted a pending DARAB case. She maintained the SPAs were properly notarized as the attorney-in-fact personally appeared.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for notarizing documents without the required signatures and for the inaccurate mortgage contract, recommending revocation of her notarial commission, a two-year disqualification, and a six-month suspension from law practice. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a one-year suspension. Respondent filed motions for reconsideration, arguing the additional documents were inadmissible and citing mitigating circumstances, which the IBP denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit should be disciplined for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law based on the allegations of notarizing defective documents and committing acts of dishonesty and malpractice.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s findings. It first addressed procedural matters, ruling that the additional documents submitted by complainant were admissible as evidence in the disbarment proceeding, as the rules on confidentiality for notarial registers do not render such documents inadmissible when obtained by private individuals.
On the merits, the Court found respondent liable for multiple violations. Regarding the Real Estate Mortgage, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by drafting a document containing a false statement of ownership, which constituted unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Her claim of inadvertence was rejected, as a lawyer must exercise due diligence in document preparation.
For notarizing the lease agreement without the lessees’ signatures and the various unsigned documents (SPAs, deeds, affidavits, etc.) submitted as additional evidence, respondent violated the Notarial Law and her oath as a notary public. A notary public must ensure the parties personally appear and sign the document in their presence. Notarizing documents without the requisite signatures or personal appearance is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of notarized documents.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless routine; it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Respondent’s actions, including the inaccurate mortgage and the notarization of unsigned documents, demonstrated a disregard for her duties.
Considering the gravity of the offenses, which involved multiple instances of misconduct over several years, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years, revocation of her notarial commission (if still existing), and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court found no mitigating circumstances sufficient to reduce the penalty, as respondent’s actions betrayed a pattern of negligence and violation of her solemn duties as a lawyer and notary public.