A.C. No. 8116, September 16, 2020
Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon Hermoso, Complainants, vs. Atty. Sylvester C. Parado, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, successors-in-interest to Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug, filed a disbarment case against Atty. Sylvester C. Parado for allegedly notarizing two Deeds of Absolute Sale on February 15, 2007, without the personal appearance of the affiants. They asserted that Estrella, the vendor, had just been discharged from the hospital on that date after chemotherapy, rendering her mentally unfit to execute any contract. Her blind and bedridden husband, Michelangelo C. Patalinghug, was similarly incapable of appearing. The notarization allegedly facilitated the transfer of portions of Estrella’s property to Spouses Salvador and Darlwin Cesar.
Atty. Parado failed to file his comment on the complaint despite directives from the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), where he also did not submit any answer, appear at the mandatory conference, or file any pleadings. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found merit in the complaint, noting Atty. Parado’s lack of authority to act as a notary public in 2007 and his failure to comply with court orders and MCLE requirements. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a modified penalty.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Sylvester C. Parado should be held administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Parado is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with public interest, converting a private document into a public one entitled to full faith and credit. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must ensure the signatories are physically present and properly identified at the time of notarization to verify the genuineness of the signature and the voluntariness of the act. A breach of this duty constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 1 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (prohibiting falsehood).
Atty. Parado’s failure to contest the allegations, despite due notice, was deemed an admission of the facts and a waiver of his right to refute them. His disregard of court and IBP orders further demonstrated a disrespect for judicial authority. Considering the gravity of notarizing documents without the affiants’ personal appearance and his contumacious behavior, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year. Additionally, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two years, with a stern warning against repetition.