Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant) against Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe (respondent) for malpractice as a notary public and gross negligence in his duties as a lawyer. The complaint was initiated on April 27, 2006, alleging that the respondent notarized a document titled "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" on the 25th day of 1999, despite not being registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina. The complainant provided a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, confirming that the respondent was not a commissioned notary public from March 30, 1994, to the date of issuance.

In response to the complaint, the respondent admitted to notarizing the document but claimed he was commissioned as a notary public. He submitted a certification from the RTC of Pasig City, indicating his appointment as...

Facts:

1. Complaint Filed: Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. filed a complaint on April 27, 2006, against respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe for malpractice as a notary public and gross negligence.
2. Allegations: Respondent, despite not being commissioned as a notary public for Marikina City, notarized a document titled "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999," falsely stating he was a notary public for Marikina City.
3. Supporting Evidence: Complainant submitted a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, confirming that respondent was not a commissioned notary public for Marikina City from March 30, 1994, to May 26, 2005.
4. Respondent's Defense: Respondent admitted notarizing the document but claimed he was commissioned as a notary public for Pasig City and other municipalities during 1998-1999. He submitted a certification from the RTC of Pasig City to support his claim.
5. Additional Claims: Respondent filed a counter-complaint against complainant for harassment and malpractice.
6. IBP Investigation: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer's oath.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe should be held administratively liable for malpractice as a notary public and for violating the lawyer's oath.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of malpractice as a notary public and for violating the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposed the following penalties:

1. Suspension: Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
2. Disqualification: He is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year.
3. Revocation: His existing notarial commission, if any, is revoked.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)