G.R. No. A.C. No. 7036; June 29, 2009
Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum, Complainant, vs. Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, Respondent.

FACTS

Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint alleged that Atty. Quintana performed notarial acts in Midsayap, Cotabato, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commission issued by the RTC of Cotabato City for Cotabato City and Maguindanao Province. Despite a written directive from Judge Laquindanum to cease, he continued the practice. Investigation further revealed that his wife, a non-lawyer, performed notarial acts in his absence on several documents. Additionally, Atty. Quintana notarized documents after his commission had expired on December 31, 2005, and was found to have notarized a Deed of Donation in 2004 where one signatory had died in 2003.
Atty. Quintana defended himself by claiming he was practicing law in Midsayap, which he argued was within the broader Province of Cotabato. He asserted that only the commissioning judge or the Supreme Court could prohibit him, not Judge Laquindanum. He admitted his wife signed some documents but claimed it was due to an entrapment, and he had reprimanded her. He also argued his notarial commission was valid for the entire province, a claim contradicted by the clear jurisdictional limits stated in his commission and the rules.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Quintana is guilty of multiple violations. The Supreme Court emphasized that a notarial commission is limited to the territorial jurisdiction explicitly stated by the commissioning court. His commission was for Cotabato City and Maguindanao only; Midsayap, Cotabato is a distinct area within the Province of Cotabato and thus outside his authorized zone. Performing acts there constituted unauthorized practice. Letting his wife, a non-lawyer, perform notarial acts was a grave violation of the rule that a notary must personally witness the signing. Notarizing documents after his commission expired and notarizing a document for a deceased person demonstrated gross negligence and a failure to exercise the requisite diligence in verifying the identity and competence of parties. These acts breached his duties as a notary public and lawyer, undermining the integrity of notarial acts. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if still existing), and disqualified him from being a notary public for two years.