9/22/2016

A.C.No.7184

TodayisThursday,September22,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
A.C.No.7184September17,2014
FELIPEB.ALMAZAN,SR.,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.MARCELOB.SUERTEFELIPE,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLASBERNABE,J.:
ThisisanadministrativecaseagainstrespondentAtty.MarceloB.SuerteFelipe(respondent)formalpracticeas
anotarypublic,amongothers.
TheFacts
In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant) charged respondent,
previouslyofthePublicAttorney'sOffice,2formalpracticeandgrossnegligenceintheperformanceofhisdutyas
anotarypublicand/orlawyer,allegingthatthelatter,despitenothavingbeenregisteredasanotarypublicforthe
CityofMarikina,notarizedtheacknowledgmentofthedocumententitled"ExtrajudicialSettlementoftheEstateof
theDeceasedJulianaP.Vda.DeNieva"3dated"25thdayof1999"(subjectdocument),statingthatheisa"notary
publicforandintheCityofMarikina."4 Said document was one of the attachments to the Amended Complaint5
datedAugust14,2003filedinCivilCaseNo.03849MKentitled"EsperanzaNievaDelaCruz[(asrepresentedby
respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by complainant)]." To prove his claim, complainant attached a
Certification6datedMay26,2005issuedbytheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
MarikinaCity,certifyingthatperthecourtsrecord,respondentisnotacommissionednotarypublicfortheCityof
Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance. In a Resolution7 dated July 5, 2006, the Court required
respondenttofilehisComment8whichheeventuallysubmittedonFebruary13,2007afterproperservice.Insaid
pleading,respondentadmittedthatheindeednotarizedtheacknowledgmentofthesubjectdocumentbutdenied
thathewasnotcommissionedasanotarypublicatthattime.9Toprovehisdefense,heattachedaCertification10
datedAugust23,2006issuedbytheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheRTCofPasigCity,certifyingthefactofhis
appointment as notary public for the City of Pasigand in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and
Mandaluyong for the years 19981999 under Appointment No. 98.11 Further, respondent, thru the comment,
incorporated his own administrative complaint against complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow
lawyerinviewofthefilingoftheinstantadministrativecaseagainsthim.12
Inresponse,complainantfiledaReply13datedApril26,2007assertingthathehasthelegitimaterighttofilethe
administrativecomplaintagainstrespondentforhisunlawfulactofnotarization,whichisnotanactofharassment
asrespondentclaims.Healsodrawsattentiontothefactthatthesubjectdocumentwasincompletelydatedand
yetnotarizedbyrespondent.14InaResolution15datedJuly11,2007,theCourt,interalia,referredthecasetothe
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Eventually, both parties
appearedduringthemandatoryconferenceheldonApril30,2008.16
TheReportandRecommendationoftheIBP
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated September 22, 2008, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
foundrespondentguiltyforviolatingtheNotarialLawandthelawyersoath,reasoningthathecouldnotnotarize
the acknowledgment of the subject document inMarikina City as it was outside the territorial limits of his
jurisdiction. To this end, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that in the acknowledgment of the subject
document,itwascategoricallystatedthatrespondentisanotarypublicforandintheCityofMarikina,Province
ofRizal,ofwhichhewasnot,hence,violatingtheNotarialLaw.Moreover,respondentlikewiseviolatedthelawyers
oath,specificallyitsmandateforlawyers,toobeythelawsanddonofalsehood.18

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7184_2014.html

1/4

9/22/2016

A.C.No.7184

Inviewoftheforegoing,itwasthusrecommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedforaperiodoftwo(2)years
fromthepracticeoflaw.However,sinceitdoesnotappearthathewasstillcommissionedasanotarypublic,the
InvestigatingCommissionerdidnotrecommendthathebedisqualifiedassuch.19
In a Resolution20 dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension to
one (1) year, with immediate revocation of notarial commission if presently commissioned, and disqualification
frombeingcommissionedasanotarypublicfortwo(2)years.
Onreconsideration,21 the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution22 dated March 8, 2014, modifiedthe penalty
statedinitspreviousresolution,imposing,instead,thepenaltyofreprimandwithwarning,anddisqualificationfrom
beingcommissionedasanotarypublicforthedecreasedperiodofone(1)year.
TheIssueBeforetheCourt
Theessentialissueinthiscaseiswhetherornotrespondentshouldbeheldadministrativelyliable.
TheCourtsRuling
TheCourtconcurswiththefindingsoftheIBPexceptastothepenalty.
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, respondent, who himself admitted that he was
commissionedasnotarypubliconlyintheCityofPasigandtheMunicipalitiesofTaguig,Pateros,SanJuan,and
Mandaluyong for the years 19981999, could not notarize the subject documents acknowledgment in the City
ofMarikina,assaidnotarialactisbeyondthejurisdictionofthecommissioningcourt,i.e.,theRTCofPasig.The
territoriallimitationofanotarypublicsjurisdictioniscrystalclearfromSection11,RuleIIIofthe2004Ruleson
NotarialPractice:23Sec.11.JurisdictionandTermApersoncommissionedasnotarypublicmayperformnotarial
acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning courtfor a period of two (2) years
commencingthefirstdayofJanuaryoftheyearinwhichthecommissioningcourtismade,unlesseitherrevoked
orthenotarypublichasresignedundertheseRulesandtheRulesofCourt.(Emphasissupplied)
Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised
AdministrativeCodeof1917,asamended,24ofwhichSection240,ArticleIIstates:
Sec.240.Territorialjurisdiction.Thejurisdictionofanotarypublicinaprovinceshallbecoextensivewiththe
province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be coextensive with said city. No notary
shallpossessauthoritytodoanynotarialactbeyondthelimitsofhisjurisdiction.(Emphasessupplied)
FormisrepresentinginthesaidacknowledgmentthathewasanotarypublicforandintheCityofMarikina,when
it is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further committed a form of falsehood
whichisundoubtedlyanathematothelawyersoath.Perceptibly,saidtransgressionalsorunsafoulofRule1.01,
Canon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovidesthat"[a]lawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct."
InthecaseofTanTiongBiov.Atty.Gonzales,25citingNungav.Atty.Viray,26theCourtinstructivelyexpoundedon
infractionssimilartothatofrespondent:
Whileseeminglyappearingtobeaharmlessincident,respondentsactofnotarizingdocumentsinaplaceoutside
of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity inthe violation involved, what the Court said in
Nungav.Virayisverymuchapropos:WherethenotarizationofadocumentisdonebyamemberofthePhilippine
Baratatimewhenhehasnoauthorizationorcommissiontodoso,theoffendermaybesubjectedtodisciplinary
action.Forone,performinganotarial[act]withoutsuchcommissionisaviolationofthelawyersoathtoobeythe
laws,morespecifically,theNotarialLaw.Then,too,bymakingitappearthatheisdulycommissionedwhenheis
not,heis,foralllegalintentsandpurposes,indulgingindeliberatefalsehood,whichthelawyersoathsimilarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility,whichprovides:"Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitful
conduct."
It cannot be overemphasized that notarization isnot an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from it.
Notarizationisinvestedwithsubstantivepublicinterest,suchthatonlythosewhoarequalifiedorauthorizedmay
actasnotariespublic.Hence,therequirementsfortheissuanceofacommissionasnotarypublicaretreatedwith
aformalitydefinitelymorethancasual.27(Emphasessupplied)
1 w p h i1

With respondents liability herein established, and considering further the attendant circumstances of this case,
take for instance, that he is a first time offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings,28 the
Courtfindsthatsuspensionforaperiodofsix(6)months29fromthepracticeoflawwouldsufficeasapenalty.In
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7184_2014.html

2/4

9/22/2016

A.C.No.7184

addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and, his
notarialcommission,ifcurrentlyexisting,isherebyrevoked.30
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.MarceloB.SuerteFelipeisfoundGUILTYofmalpracticeasanotarypublic,and
violatingthelawyersoathaswellasRule1.01,Canon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Accordingly,
he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this
Resolution,withaSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and his
notarialcommission,ifcurrentlyexisting,isherebyREVOKED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's
personal record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the
countryfortheirinformationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
1

Rollo,pp.14.

Id.at50.

Id.at2324.

Id.at24.

Id.at1318.

Id.at32.

Id.at33.

Id.at5052.

Id.at50.

10

Id.at48and53.

11

Id.at51and53.

12

Id.at51.

13

Id.at6367.

14

Seeid.at65.

15

Id.at73.

16

Id.at102.

17

Id.at102106.SignedbyCommissionerRebeccaVillanuevaMaala.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7184_2014.html

3/4

9/22/2016

A.C.No.7184
18

Id.at105.

19

Seeid.at106.

20

SeeNoticeofResolutionsignedbyNationalSecretaryTomasN.Pradoid.at101.

21

SeeMotionforReconsiderationdatedJanuary28,2009id.at107110.

22

SeeNoticeofResolutionsignedbyNationalSecretaryNasserA.Marohomsalicid.at120.

23

A.M.No.02813SCdatedJuly6,2004.

24

SeePeav.Paterno,A.C.No.4191,June10,2013,698SCRA1,14.

25

557Phil.496(2007).

26

366Phil.155,161(1999).

27

TanTiongBiov.Atty.Gonzales,supranote25,at504.

28

Rollo,p.110.

29

SeeAgagonv.Atty.Bustamante,565Phil.581,586588(2007).

30

Seeid.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7184_2014.html

4/4