A.C. No.

7184 September 17, 2014

FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., vs. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE

Facts: Atty. Almazan charged Atty. Felipe of malpractice and gross negligence in
the performance of his duty as a notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that despite not
being qualified to notarize documents within the City of Marikina, Atty. Felipe notarized
the acknowledgment of the document entitled “Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of
the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva” dated “25 th day of 1999,” stating that he is a
“notary public for and in the City of Marikina.” This document was one of the attachments
to a civil case against Almazan’s client. To support Atty. Almazan’s complaint is a
certification from the Marikina RTC that Atty. Felipe is not a commissioned notary
public of their jurisdiction. Furthermore, Atty. Felipe notarized an incompletely dated
document.

Atty. Felipe interposed the defense that he is indeed a commissioned notary

public for and in Pasig City, Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan and Mandaluyong
for 1998 to 1999 by virtue of Appointment No. 98. He also filed an administrative
complaint against Almazan for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Felipe is administratively liable.

Ruling: Yes. The IBP found Felipe guilty of violating the Notarial Law and his
Lawyer’s Oath as he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the said document since
Marikina City is outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. The territorial limitation of
a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice, particularly Sec. 11 on the notary public’s jurisdiction and term.

Atty. Felipe committed a form of falsehood in violation of his Lawyer’s Oath

when he misrepresented in the acknowledgment that he was authorized to notarize the
said document. This is also in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For one,
performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law.

Atty. Felipe’s liability, considering further the attendant for instance, that he
is a first time offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings, a
suspension for a period of six months from the practice of law would suffice as a penalty.
In addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of
one year and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby revoked.