AC 6491; (January, 2005) (Digest)
A.C. No. 6491; January 31, 2005
BENILDA M. MADDELA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Benilda Maddela, a court clerk, sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao, a Clerk of Court, for acts unbecoming a lawyer and public servant, grave misconduct, and slander. The complaint stemmed from a loan transaction where the respondent allegedly lent money to the complainant at a 5% monthly interest. The complainant accused the respondent of forcibly taking and encashing her cash gift check without authorization to apply to the loan interest, and of creating a disturbance in the office by shouting insults and breaking a glass tabletop when the complainant refused to surrender another check. The complainant also attached a separate confidential letter alleging that the respondent, before her admission to the bar, notarized documents in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction specified in her notarial commission.
The respondent denied operating a lending business, claiming she merely brokered the loan and acted as a guarantor. She presented an authorization signed by the complainant for the collection of certain checks. Regarding the notarization issue, she admitted notarizing documents outside her commission area but explained it was done as a free accommodation for relatives without profit.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for her actions, particularly for notarizing documents outside the area of her notarial commission.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court, in a prior resolution (A.M. No. P-04-1890), had already adjudged the respondent guilty of simple misconduct for the office altercation and ordered her to replace the broken tabletop. The remaining issue concerned her act of notarizing outside her territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but is vested with public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. The respondent’s explanation that she acted as a favor and without charge is immaterial. The act itself of notarizing beyond the authorized area constitutes misconduct.
However, since this notarial misconduct was committed before her admission to the bar, she could not be disciplined as a lawyer for that specific act. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommended penalty of reprimand was deemed too light. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000) as a sufficient sanction for her misconduct in her former capacity as a notary public. The Court’s ruling modifies the IBP resolution accordingly.