AM L 3727; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3727 December 11, 1992
NELSON BUENSUCESO, CORNELIO DE RUNA, GLORIA DE LA PEÑA, JOSE ANDRADA and SALVACION JABLO, complainants, vs. ATTY. JOELITO T. BARRERA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants charged respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera with unauthorized notarization of documents. The specific allegation was that long after his notarial commission expired in 1978, he continued to perform notarial acts and affix his notarial seal and signature on five documents between July 1989 and October 1990. These documents were: (a) a complaint for ejectment; (b) an affidavit dated 26 September 1990; (c) a supplemental affidavit dated 12 October 1990; (d) a deed of sale dated 14 August 1990; and (e) a contract to sell dated 29 July 1990. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Iloilo Chapter found that these five documents, plus four others from a separate complaint, were all notarized by respondent during that period without a renewed commission. Respondent, in his comment, did not deny the notarizations but claimed his failure to renew was due to excusable inadvertence and negligence, blaming his secretary for the lapse. He stated he had no intent to violate the law and, upon learning of the expiration, ceased all notarial activities and filed a petition in court for confirmation of his notarial acts. The complainants later withdrew their complaint, but the Court proceeded as the acts involved public interest.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that respondent’s behavior constituted a violation of law and gross misconduct. Notarization is not a mere formality; it converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity, and the public must be able to rely on the notary’s acknowledgment. By notarizing documents without a valid commission for over twelve years, respondent committed acts constituting malpractice and falsification of public documents. The Court rejected his defense of excusable inadvertence and negligence, noting that shifting blame to his secretary showed a lack of the diligence required of a lawyer. Following the precedent in Joson v. Baltazar, which disbarred an attorney for similar acts, the Court deemed suspension appropriate. Respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.