AC 6492; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6492 ; November 18, 2004
MELANIO L. ZORETA, complainant, vs. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano, counsel for the opposing party in a civil case. The complaint alleged that during the year 2002, respondent notarized eight separate documents, including verifications, certifications against forum shopping, and affidavits of service, which were submitted to the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City and the Court of Appeals. These documents explicitly indicated his notarial commission was set to expire on December 31, 2002.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) required respondent to answer the complaint. Despite being granted extensions and a final chance to file his comment, respondent failed to submit any responsive pleading. The IBP Investigating Commissioner then proceeded based on the complainant’s evidence, which included certifications from the Clerk of Court of Quezon City. These certifications conclusively stated that respondent was not a duly commissioned notary public for Quezon City for the year 2002; his last commission had expired on December 31, 2001, and he did not apply for renewal for 2002 or 2003.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s factual findings but modified the penalty. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a notary public’s duties. A notary public is a public officer whose acts, such as administering oaths and acknowledging documents, imbue documents with public faith and are vested with substantive legal effects. Performing these acts without a valid commission is a clear violation of the Notarial Law and constitutes a deceitful and unlawful act that undermines the integrity of the notarial system and the legal profession.
Respondent’s failure to file an answer or offer any explanation constituted an admission of the allegations. His actions demonstrated gross misconduct as a member of the Bar. The Court emphasized that a lawyer who acts as a notary public without authority commits a serious transgression, as it betrays the trust reposed by the public and the courts in the authenticity of notarized documents. Considering the gravity of the offense, which involved multiple documents over an extended period, and the need to uphold the sanctity of notarization, the Court imposed a more severe penalty than the IBP’s recommendation. Respondent was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public and suspended from the practice of law for two years.