Heirs of Alilano vs. Examen

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are imprescriptible, and a notary public who neglects to verify the residence certificate details of the parties and certifies an incorrect cedula number violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate sanction.

Spouses Pedro and Florentina Alilano were the registered owners of a 98,460 sq.m. parcel of land in Sultan Kudarat. After their deaths, a dispute arose over the property between their heirs and the Examen spouses. Two absolute deeds of sale, purportedly executed by the Alilano spouses in 1984 in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife Edna, were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen, the brother of vendee Ramon. The heirs of the Alilanos later filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, during which respondent introduced the notarized deeds into evidence. The heirs thereafter lodged an administrative complaint for disbarment, alleging multiple irregularities in the notarization and the presentation of the documents.

• The Property and the Deeds of Sale: Spouses Pedro and Florentina Alilano held OCT No. P-23261 over a 98,460 sq.m. property in Sultan Kudarat. On March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984, Absolute Deeds of Sale covering the property were executed in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife Edna. Both deeds were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen, brother of vendee Ramon Examen. The vendees obtained possession of the property in September 1984.

• The Civil Case: On January 12, 2002, the heirs of the Alilanos filed a suit for recovery of possession against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen before the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat (Civil Case No. 1013). During the trial, Atty. Examen introduced the 1984 absolute deeds of sale into evidence.

• Administrative Complaint: The heirs of Pedro Alilano, represented by David Alilano, filed the present disbarment complaint on November 15, 2003. They alleged that respondent violated the Notarial Law, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility on several grounds: (a) he notarized documents in which one of the parties was his brother, a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, relying on Barretto v. Cabreza; (b) the residence certificate number used for vendee Ramon Examen in the acknowledgments was not his but that of Florentina Alilano; (c) the two witnesses did not personally appear before him, yet he falsely acknowledged their presence; and (d) despite knowing these infirmities, he introduced the documents as evidence in the civil case.

• Respondent’s Defense: Atty. Examen countered that, by the time of notarization, the Revised Administrative Code no longer contained a prohibition against notarizing documents where a party is related to the notary public. Regarding the erroneous cedula number, he claimed good faith, asserting that it was office practice for his secretary to type the details without his personal review. He further argued that the use of another’s residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription under IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13, which proposed a two-year prescriptive period for professional misconduct. Respondent also invoked prescription based on the lapse of time between the 1984 notarizations and the 2003 complaint.

• IBP Findings: The IBP CBD found that there was ample evidence—including denials under oath by the attesting witnesses and an NBI handwriting expert’s report showing significant differences in Pedro Alilano’s signature—indicating the spouses did not voluntarily convey the property. The CBD also noted that Ramon Examen’s residence certificate number, date, and place of issue were falsified as they actually referred to Florentina Pueblo. The CBD recommended disbarment; the IBP BOG adopted the findings but progressively reduced the penalty.

• Prohibition Under Spanish Notarial Law: Complainants argued that Atty. Examen violated the notarial law as interpreted in Barretto v. Cabreza, which disqualified a notary public from notarizing a document where one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

• Falsified Residence Certificate: It was alleged that respondent notarized the deeds knowing that the residence certificate number used for Ramon Examen was not his but belonged to Florentina Alilano, thereby falsifying a material detail in a public document.

• False Acknowledgment of Witnesses: Complainants maintained that respondent falsely certified that the two instrumental witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not.

• Introduction of Infirm Documents in Court: Complainants contended that despite being aware of these notarial defects, respondent presented the absolute deeds of sale as evidence in the civil case for recovery of possession, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Lack of Prohibition Under Revised Administrative Code: Respondent argued that the Spanish Notarial Law had been repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, and at the time of notarization, there was no provision disqualifying a notary public from acting where a party was his sibling. Therefore, he was not incompetent to notarize the deeds.

• Good Faith and Office Practice: Respondent claimed that the erroneous cedula number resulted from his secretary’s practice of typing details without his personal examination, and that he acted in good faith. He argued that such error did not constitute grounds for disbarment.

• Prescription of Offense: Respondent invoked prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13, which proposed a two-year prescriptive period for professional misconduct, and emphasized the lapse of almost two decades between the notarization and the filing of the complaint.

• Use of Wrong Cedula Not a Disbarment Offense: Respondent maintained that a failure to make proper notation of cedulas could only be a ground for revocation of a notarial commission, not for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

• Prescription: Whether the administrative complaint against Atty. Examen was barred by prescription.
• Disqualification by Affinity/Consanguinity: Whether Atty. Examen was disqualified from notarizing the absolute deeds of sale because the vendee was his brother.
• Liability for Erroneous Residence Certificate: Whether respondent’s failure to verify the residence certificate details and his notation of an incorrect cedula number constituted misconduct warranting administrative sanction.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent’s acts and omissions transgressed the Lawyer’s Oath and the pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Prescription: Administrative disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar are imprescriptible. The Court, citing Frias v. Bautista-Lozada and earlier jurisprudence, declared that any rule imposing a prescriptive period on such cases, such as IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13, is void and of no legal effect. The nature of the Court’s disciplinary authority demands that no erring lawyer escape liability merely by the passage of time.

• Disqualification by Affinity/Consanguinity: Respondent was not disqualified from notarizing the deeds of sale in favor of his brother. The Spanish Notarial Law of 1889, which contained the prohibition relied upon by complainants, was repealed by the enactment of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (specifically Act No. 496 and later codifications), as settled in Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan. At the time respondent notarized the documents, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code contained no prohibition against a notary public acting where an interested party is a relative within the fourth civil degree. The disqualification found in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was not yet in force.

• Liability for Erroneous Residence Certificate: Respondent’s failure to personally check the correctness of the residence certificate details was a clear violation of the Notarial Law. Under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, a notary public is required to certify that the parties have presented their proper cedula certificates and to enter the number, place of issue, and date. Respondent’s certification that Ramon Examen’s cedula was a number that actually belonged to Florentina Alilano constituted a false notation. The duty to verify such details is personal; respondent could not delegate it to his secretary or excuse himself by invoking office practice. The lapse warranted not only revocation of his notarial commission but also disciplinary sanction as a lawyer.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: By negligently notarizing the documents and failing to uphold the integrity of the notarial act, respondent violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for legal processes, and to refrain from conduct that lessens confidence in the legal system. Notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest; respondent’s failure to exercise utmost diligence undermined the public’s trust in notarized documents. Such misconduct also fell within the grounds for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In light of respondent’s previous procedural infractions in a related case and the gravity of the breach, the appropriate penalty was suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years.

• Imprescriptibility of Disciplinary Proceedings — There is no prescriptive period for administrative cases against members of the bar. Any rule that would impose a time limit on the filing of complaints for professional misconduct is void for being ultra vires and contrary to the Court’s plenary disciplinary authority. The policy, consistently applied since Calo, Jr. v. Degamo, aims to prevent unscrupulous lawyers from evading liability simply because no complaint was promptly filed.

• Repeal of the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 — The Spanish Notarial Law of 1889, including its prohibition against a notary public’s acting in instruments where a party is a relative by consanguinity or affinity, was repealed by the enactment of Act No. 496 and the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Under the Revised Administrative Code (Chapter 11, Sections 231-259), no equivalent disqualification existed; thus, at the time of respondent’s acts, a notary public was not incompetent to notarize a document for a sibling. The present disqualification was introduced only in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Duties of a Notary Public — Notarization is not a meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantial public interest. A notary public must perform his duties with accuracy, fidelity, and utmost care. The obligation to verify the identity, personal appearance, and the genuineness of required documentary details (e.g., residence certificates) is personal and cannot be delegated to staff. Failure to make the proper notation of cedula information is a ground for revocation of a notarial commission and, when coupled with a lack of diligence that undermines the integrity of the legal profession, also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• “[N]otarization 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.”

• “If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice.”

• “[T]he lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.”

• “A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal.”

• Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, 523 Phil. 17 (2006) — Followed; established that there is no prescription in bar discipline cases and that IBP rules imposing a prescriptive period are void.
• Heck v. Santos, 467 Phil. 798 (2004) — Followed; reiterated the imprescriptibility of administrative complaints against lawyers to protect the integrity of the profession.
• Calo, Jr. v. Degamo, 126 Phil. 802 (1967) — Followed; the original ruling that actions for disbarment do not prescribe.
• Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals, 109 Phil. 889 (1960) — Followed; held that the Spanish Notarial Law was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code, thereby removing the disqualification of a notary public based on affinity or consanguinity.
• Nunga v. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Followed; emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit, and that notaries must observe utmost care.
• Soriano v. Atty. Basco, 507 Phil. 410 (2005) — Followed; ruled that the notarial law’s requirement for proper cedula notation is mandatory, and failure to comply is a dereliction of duty.
• Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua, A.C. No. 6655, October 11, 2011 — Applied; served as precedent for the imposition of a two-year suspension from the practice of law for similar notarial and ethical violations.

• Section 251, Chapter 11, Revised Administrative Code — Requires that every document acknowledged before a notary public bear a certification of the presentation of proper residence certificates, including the number, place of issue, and date of each certificate. Applied to hold that respondent’s entry of an incorrect cedula number for the vendee constituted a failure to comply with a mandatory notarial duty.

• Section 249(f), Chapter 11, Revised Administrative Code — Lists the failure of a notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates as a ground for revocation of commission. Served as the statutory basis for revoking respondent’s notarial commission.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Applied to hold that respondent’s acts fell within the ambit of this provision.

• Canon 1 and Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 1 mandates obedience to the law and respect for legal processes; Rule 1.02 forbids conduct that lessens confidence in the legal system. Applied because respondent’s negligent notarization undermined the integrity of notarized documents and public trust in the profession.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio was on leave.