A.C. No. 8968. September 26, 2017
Ma. Vilma F. Maniquiz, Complainant, v. Atty. Danilo C. Emelo, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ma. Vilma Maniquiz filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Danilo C. Emelo for notarizing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale and for acting without a notarial commission. The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a deed purportedly executed by her sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor in favor of spouses Leonardo and Lucena Torres. Upon receiving a copy, Mergelita denied ever signing the document. The complainant noted the document lacked witness names, only bore signatures, and the purported vendees failed to present government IDs. The document also omitted the respondent’s notarial commission and roll of attorneys number.
In his defense, Atty. Emelo admitted notarizing the document based on a photocopy of a passport presented by his kumpare, Leonardo Torres, who appeared before him. He claimed a woman introduced herself as Mergelita. Regarding the lack of commission, he explained that his records, possibly including his commission orders for 2007, were destroyed by a typhoon in 2006. He admitted to notarizing without a commission and pleaded for clemency. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended a two-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Danilo C. Emelo is administratively liable for notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission and for notarizing a deed under questionable circumstances.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Emelo administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a public function imbued with substantive interest, ensuring the authenticity and due execution of documents. A notary public must verify the identity of parties and ensure their physical presence to prevent forgery and fraud. By notarizing without a commission, Emelo violated the Notarial Law and his lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, constituting an unlawful and deceitful act under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
The Court rejected his excuses. The claim of lost records did not justify practicing without a commission, and reliance on a passport photocopy without rigorous verification failed to fulfill his duty to ascertain the identities and consent of the parties. Such misconduct undermines public confidence in notarized documents and the legal profession. Following precedent for similar violations, the Court imposed a suspension of two years from the practice of law, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and perpetually disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public. This penalty reflects the gravity of his actions in compromising the integrity of the notarial process.