A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015
Elena Biete Leones Vda. de Miller, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rolando B. Miranda, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elena Miller filed an ejectment case against Clarita Magbuhos before the MTCC of Angeles City. Corazon Manansala, claiming to be Magbuhos’s attorney-in-fact, appeared alongside her counsel, respondent Atty. Rolando Miranda. Manansala initially presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by respondent, which authorized her to represent Magbuhos regarding a “cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais,” not the ejectment case. Insisting on her authority, Manansala, through respondent, submitted an altered SPA. This second document was nearly identical but contained handwritten alterations: the original loan phrase was parenthesized, and a new phrase authorizing representation for the ejectment property was inserted. These handwritten changes lacked Magbuhos’s initials or countersignatures and bore no indication of when they were made.
The MTCC, in an Order dated November 18, 2009, denied the admission of the altered SPA, ruling Manansala had no authority. The court found the insertions were made after notarization without Magbuhos’s countersignature. This prompted complainant to file an administrative complaint, arguing respondent’s submission of an altered document he notarized was immoral and unlawful. Respondent defended himself, claiming the alterations were an “honest mistake or oversight,” alleging he instructed his secretary to correct a draft but failed to proofread the final version before notarization, and that Magbuhos later authorized the handwritten corrections.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for his actions concerning the notarization and submission of the altered Special Power of Attorney.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but imbued with public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public must exercise duties with carefulness and faithfulness. Respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. By notarizing the original SPA, he attested to the parties’ solemn affirmations at that time. The subsequent submission of an altered version with unauthorized handwritten insertions, which he also presented as notarized, constituted gross negligence and misconduct. His defense of an honest mistake is unavailing; as a lawyer and notary, he bears personal responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of documents he notarizes and submits to court. His acts damaged the affected parties and degraded the integrity of the legal profession and the notarial function.
Accordingly, the Court found respondent guilty. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year; his incumbent notarial commission is REVOKED; and he is DISQUALIFIED from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years, with a stern warning against repetition.