(Part 16) EN BANC | Hernando, J. | MANZANO vs. RIVERA
[ A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020 ]
ATTY. ANTONIO B. MANZANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, RESPONDENT
Notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes such document admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Consequenlty, notaries public must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.18
We have repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.19 In other words, to protect substantive public interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.20
Corollarily, Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear. Only a person who is commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Hence, a violation thereof should therefore not be dealt with lightly to preserve the integrity of notarization.
In the case at bench, it was sufficiently proven that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a notary public at the time he notarized the Answer that was filed by the defendants in Civil Case No. 33-467-2014.
Atty. Rivera's act of making it appear that he was a duly commissioned notary public is in blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, i.e. the Notarial Law, and to do no falsehood. 24
In Advincula v. Macabata, 26 we emphasized that good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve membership in the Bar in good standing, thus:
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.
In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr., we emphasized that:
This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.
We explained in Barrientos v. Daarol that,
"as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community."
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. [Citations Omitted.]
The instant case is on all fours with Villaflores-Puza v. Arellano wherein therein respondent Atty. Arellano notarized affidavits of his witnesses without a notarial commission and did not participate in the administrative proceedings without valid cause.
As a consequence, thereof, he was meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public. Thus, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, we find that the recommended penalties of the IBP to suspend Atty. Rivera from the practice of law for three years and to perpetually disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public are just and proper.
Citations:
20 Collantes v. Mabuti, A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019.
The Lawyer's Oath states:
LAWYER'S OATH
I, .......................... , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any man's cause for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntarily without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Read the full decision at https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/ac_12173_2020.html
Comments
Post a Comment