EN BANC
JUDGE LILY
A. LAQUINDANUM,
Complainant, Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,*
CHICO-NAZARIO,
-
versus - VELASCO,
JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
and
BERSAMIN,
JJ.
Promulgated:
ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA,
Respondent. June
29, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I
O N
PUNO, C.J.:
This
administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty. Quintana) stemmed
from a letter[1]
addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum
(Judge Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato
requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for performing
notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission,
and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that
pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely
monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of
their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend
notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she wrote a letter[2] to
Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which
is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued
his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since
certain documents[3]
notarized by him had been reaching her office.
However, despite such directive,
respondent continuously performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as
evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card[4]
executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s License[5]
executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.
Under Sec. 11, Rule III[6] of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Quintana could not extend his
notarial acts beyond
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further
investigation of the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty. Quintana’s
wife who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office as attested
to by the Joint Affidavit[7]
executed by Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes.
In a Resolution dated February 14,
2006,[8] we
required Atty. Quintana to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum.
In his Response,[9]
Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial commission before
Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by Judge
Laquindanum for three weeks. He alleged
that the reason for Judge Laquindanum’s inaction was that she questioned his
affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City
Chapter, and required him to be a member of IBP Kidapawan City Chapter and to obtain
a Certification of Payments from the latter chapter. Because of this, he opted to withdraw his
petition. After he withdrew his
petition, he claimed that Judge Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask
him to return his petition, but he did not oblige because at that time he
already had a Commission for Notary Public[10]
issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
14,
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was
singled out by Judge Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued
notarial commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings; communicated with his clients;
and disseminated information through letters, pronouncements, and directives to
court clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized by fellow
lawyers.
Atty. Quintana argued that he
subscribed documents in his office at Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part
of the
Atty. Quintana further argued that
Judge Laquindanum had no authority to issue such directive, because only
Executive Judge Reno E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the
Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in the
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,[11]
we referred this case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing[12]
before the OBC presided by Atty. Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge
Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation,[13]
which was notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004.[14] Honorata Rosil appears as one of the
signatories of the document as the donor’s wife. However, Honorata Rosil died on March 12,
2003, as shown by the Certificate of Death[15]
issued by the Civil Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato.
Judge Laquindanum testified that
Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents in the years 2006 to 2007 despite
the fact that his commission as notary public for and in the
For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted
that all the signatures appearing in the documents marked as exhibits of Judge
Laquindanum were his except for the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM
Card[21]
executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s License[22]
executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and (3) Affidavit of Loss[23]
executed by Santos V. Magbanua. He
explained that those documents were signed by his wife and were the result of
an entrapment operation of Judge Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have
them notarized by his wife, when they knew that his wife is not a lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his wife to
notarize documents. According to him, he
slapped his wife and told her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession.
Atty. Quintana also claimed that
Judge Laquindanum did not act on his petition, because he did not comply with
her requirements for him to transfer his membership to the Kidapawan Chapter, wherein
her sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP President.
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum
explained that she was only performing her responsibility and had nothing
against Atty. Quintana. The reason why
she did not act on his petition was that he had not paid his IBP dues,[24]
which is a requirement before a notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife to secure a certification
of payment from the IBP, but she did not return.
This was denied by Atty. Quintana,
who claimed that he enclosed in his Response the certification of good standing
and payments of his IBP dues. However,
when the same was examined, there were no documents attached thereto. Due to oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed that
he be given time to send them later which was granted by the Hearing Officer.
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for
forgiveness for what he had done and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that he be given another chance
and not be divested of his privilege to notarize, as it was the only bread and
butter of his family.
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana
submitted to the OBC the documents[25] issued
by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove that he had paid his IBP dues.
In a Manifestation[26]
dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum
submitted a Certification[27] and
its entries show that Atty. Quintana paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only
on January 9, 2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381. Likewise, the arrears of his IBP dues for the
years 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2003 were also paid only on January 9, 2006
per O.R. No. 610387. Hence, when he
filed his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet completely
paid his IBP dues.
In its Report and Recommendation,[28] the
OBC recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a
notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still
exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments
raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit, viz:
Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already outside his territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
“Jurisdiction
and Term – A person 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 court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary
public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Under
the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which is in Cotabato
City and the [P]rovince of Maguindanao only.
But definitely he cannot extend his commission as notary public in
Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the
xxxx
Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several documents which the respondent’s wife has herself notarized. Respondent justifies that he cannot be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 the Court held, thus:
“A
notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial
register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck
to their (sic) secretaries”
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at the time of notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80) issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato.
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]
“A
person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at
the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even determining the presence or qualifications of affiants therein, respondent only shows his gross negligence and ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
xxxx
Furthermore,
respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good standing, has the right to
practice his profession including notarial acts in the entire
While
it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the practice
of law in the
Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant being the commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato has the authority under Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to monitor the duties and responsibilities including liabilities, if any, of a notary public commissioned or those performing notarial acts without authority in her territorial jurisdiction.[29]
xxxx
We
adopt the findings of the OBC. However,
we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months
and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two
(2) years more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his
offenses.
After a careful review of the records
and evidence, there is no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed
the following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his
commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an expired
commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he
notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at
that time.
The act of notarizing documents
outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification.[30] Notarizing documents with an expired
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing
that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes.[31] Notarizing documents without the presence of
the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,[32]
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath
which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable
for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by
passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus,
guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
All told, Atty. Quintana fell
miserably short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession.
That
Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole source of income
for his family will not serve to lessen the penalty that should be imposed on
him. On the contrary, we feel that he
should be reminded that a notarial commission should not be treated as a
money-making venture. It is a privilege
granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public
interest. As we have declared on several
occasions, notarization is not an 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. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that
those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon
the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be
underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of the authenticity thereof.[33]
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still existing, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public
for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of
a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to
report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to
determine when his suspension shall take effect.
Let a copy of this decision be
entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and
copies furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(on leave)
RENATO C.
CORONA CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
* On leave.
[1] Dated November 29, 2005; rollo, pp. 3-5.
[2] Exhibit “A,” id. at 6-8.
[3] Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C,” id. at 9 & 10-13.
[4] Exhibit “D,” id. at 21.
[5] Exhibit “E,” id. at 22.
[6] SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person 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.
[7] Exhibit “F,” rollo, p. 24
[8] Rollo, p. 27.
[9] Dated September 29, 2005; id. at 30-36.
[10] Dated and effective May 24, 2004 until December 31, 2005; Exhibit “J,” id. at 23.
[11] Rollo, p. 50.
[12] TSN, id. at 132-334.
[13] Exhibit “G”; id. at 78-79.
[14] Exhibit “G-2,” id. at 79.
[15] Exhibit “H,” id. at 80.
[16]
As evidenced by the following: (i) Certification dated June 14, 2006 issued by
Clerk of Court Abdul S. Buayan of the
[17] Exhibit “K-5,” id. at 88.
[18] Exhibit “Q,” id. at 102-103.
[19] Exhibit “R,” id. at 104.
[20] Exhibit “S,” id. at 105.
[21] Supra note 4.
[22] Supra note 5.
[23] Supra note 20.
[24] As evidenced by the following: (i) Certification dated
March 23, 2004 issued by Emerlinda Molina Diaz, Treasurer of the IBP North
Cotabato Chapter; Exhibit ‘T,” rollo,
p. 128; and (ii) Certification dated March 16, 2004 issued by Frances Cynthia
Guiani-Sayadi of the IBP Cotabato City Chapter; Exhibit “U,” id. at 106.
[25] (i) Receipt of Payments with O.R. No. 610381 covering
the year 2005 to 2006; rollo, p. 117;
(ii) O.R. No. 610488 covering the year 2007; id. at 116; (iii) Certification dated January 12, 2006 of good
standing and good moral character; id.
at 112; (iv) Certification dated March 1, 2007 of good standing and good moral
character; id. at 113; and (v)
Certification dated March 2, 2007 stating that Atty. Quintana is a member of
the IBP Cotabato City Chapter, and that he has fully paid his IBP dues from
1985 to 2003; id. at 114.
[26] Rollo, p. 124.
[27] Dated March 6, 2007; id. at 125.
[28] Dated October 3, 2008; id. at 335-348.
[29]
[30] Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 6634, August 23, 2007, 530 SCRA 748.
[31] Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1.
[32] (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization;
[33] Maddela v. Dallong-Galacinao, A.C. No. 6491, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 19, 26 citing Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155, 160 (1999).