AC 9512; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9512. February 05, 2018
ROBERTO P. MABINI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VITTO A. KINTANAR, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Roberto P. Mabini alleged that he and his wife purchased a property in Albay. Subsequently, respondent Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar’s wife, Evangeline, filed a complaint for reconveyance and annulment of title against him. Attached to that complaint was an Affidavit of Lost Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title executed by Evangeline and notarized by respondent himself on April 25, 2002. Mabini charged respondent with misconduct, arguing that a lawyer is prohibited from notarizing a document executed by his spouse, making the notarization void.
Respondent countered that the notarization in 2002 was governed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which contained no prohibition against notarizing a document for one’s spouse. He also argued that, in any event, the document was a mere affidavit and not a bilateral contract. The case underwent substitutions due to the deaths of the original complainant and his spouse, with their children continuing the action.
ISSUE
Whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife’s affidavit of loss in 2002.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that respondent did not commit any misconduct. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of lex prospicit, non respicit—the law looks forward, not backward. The notarization occurred on April 25, 2002. At that time, the governing law for notarial practice was the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Act No. 2711). This Code had repealed the earlier Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. Critically, the 1917 Code did not contain any prohibition against a notary public notarizing a document for a relative, whether by affinity or consanguinity, including a spouse.
The prohibition that complainant invokes is found in the 2004 Revised Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), specifically in Rule IV, Section 3(c), which disqualifies a notary from performing a notarial act for a spouse or a relative within the fourth civil degree. However, this rule took effect only on July 6, 2004. It cannot be applied retroactively to impugn an act performed in 2002. The Court has consistently ruled in analogous cases, such as Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Atty. Examen and Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, that a notary public cannot be held liable under a rule that was not in force at the time of the act complained of. Therefore, since the law in effect in 2002 imposed no disqualification for notarizing a spouse’s document, respondent committed no violation of his duties as a notary public or as a lawyer.