A.C. No. 10928 - Guerrero vs. Giron

The case arises from a letter-report dated 24 September 2015, filed by Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
The report was submitted for administrative action after it was discovered that respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron allegedly executed notarial acts with an expired commission.

The Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City, upon conducting an inventory of its notarial records, found that respondent had submitted notarial reports beyond the validity period of her commission.
It was noted that the dates on the notarial stamps of the notarized documents were erased or tampered with to create the appearance of a valid commission extending beyond the actual expiration.

Respondent asserted she acted in good faith, believing her notarial commission was valid until 31 December 2015.
She maintained that her commission, which was originally issued on 27 September 2013, was understood to cover the years 2014 and 2015.
Atty. Giron apologized for notarizing documents beyond the expiration date of 31 December 2014, claiming the error was unintentional, and noted that the notarized documents were limited to a few transactions exclusively for her law firm’s clients.
She further submitted that her continued submission of notarial reports was consistent with her belief in the commission’s validity.

By Resolution dated 20 January 2016, the Court directed respondent to comment on the allegations, and the case was referred back to Executive Judge Guerrero for a further investigation.
In her Report/Recommendation dated 27 September 2017, the Executive Judge confirmed that respondent’s notarial commission was for a fixed term—from 27 September 2013 to 31 December 2014.
The investigative report highlighted that the alteration of the stamp (changing “4” to “5”) directly contradicted her good faith defense.
It was also established that respondent had notarized a total of 28 documents after her commission had expired, which intensified the gravity of the violation.

Despite respondent’s profuse apologies and assertions of acting in good faith, the Executive Judge found a clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The recommendation was to disqualify respondent from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of such conduct would incur more severe sanctions.

Was respondent authorized to notarize documents after the expiration of her notarial commission on 31 December 2014?
Does executing notarial acts without a valid commission contravene the legal and ethical requirements imposed on a notary public?

Did the alteration of the dates on the notarial stamps (erasing or tampering with the expiry indication) evidence an intent to deceive?
Can acting in “good faith” mitigate or justify the deliberate alteration of documents meant to signify valid authorization?

Was the initial recommendation of a two-year disqualification from serving as a notary public adequate in light of the seriousness of the violations?
Should a lawyer who notarizes documents with an expired commission and alters official records be subjected to more severe disciplinary measures?

How do the acts committed by respondent measure up against the requirements of the Notarial Law and the ethical mandates, particularly those under Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
What precedent exists regarding similar incidences indicative of bad faith and administrative violations by legal practitioners?