G.R. No. 9364 , February 8, 2017
Flordeliza E. Coquia vs. Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza

FACTS

Complainant Flordeliza Coquia filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel Laforteza, a former Clerk of Court, for allegedly notarizing two documents—an Agreement and a Payment Agreement—on January 7, 2009, which bore her forged signature. Coquia alleged she was in Manila attending classes at Centro Escolar University on that date, as evidenced by her faculty time record. She asserted that Atty. Laforteza, as an ex officio notary, lacked authority to notarize documents unrelated to his official court functions and that he conspired with a certain Clemente Solis to falsify the documents.
Atty. Laforteza denied the allegations of conspiracy. He explained that on the date in question, he was approached by a fellow court employee, Luzviminda Solis (Clemente’s wife), who introduced the parties to the documents and requested his assistance in notarizing them as a settlement between relatives. He claimed he initially hesitated but eventually accommodated them after being convinced the persons before him were the genuine parties. He relied on the representations of his co-employees to establish the identities of the signatories.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza should be held administratively liable for his acts in notarizing the subject documents.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Laforteza is administratively liable, but not for conspiracy in falsification. The Court found that Coquia failed to present clear, preponderant evidence to prove that Atty. Laforteza conspired to forge the documents or had direct participation in their preparation. Charges based on mere suspicion cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
However, Atty. Laforteza violated his duties as a notary public. As a Clerk of Court acting as a notary public ex officio, his authority to notarize is limited to documents connected with the exercise of his official functions. The notarized Agreements were private documents unrelated to any official business of his court, rendering his act an unauthorized notarization. More significantly, he admitted during the IBP investigation that he did not personally know the complainant, that she did not sign in his presence, and that he relied solely on the representations of others to identify the parties. This constitutes a gross violation of the notarial law, which mandates that a notary must require the personal appearance of the signatory and ascertain their identity. His failure to do so undermined the integrity of the notarial process. For these infractions, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year and revoked his notarial commission, with a stern warning.