G.R. No. L-27758 - People vs. Nabual

In a verified complaint filed on April 6, 2009, Maria Fatima Japitana (Fatima) accused Atty. Sylvester C. Parado (Parado) of several misconducts in performing notarial acts.
The allegations centered on notarizing documents without having a valid notarial commission, notarizing forged documents, and failing to require sufficient evidence of identity from the signatories.

On June 22, 2006, Atty. Parado notarized the Real Estate Mortgage between RC Lending Investors, Inc. and the mortgagors Maria Theresa G. Japitana and Ma. Nette Japitana, which was witnessed by Maria Sallie Japitana and Maria Lourdes Japitana-Sibi (with her husband Dante Sibi, who is also part of the family).
On the same day, he notarized the Affidavit of Conformity wherein the mortgagors and witnesses attested their assent to the mortgage.
Subsequently, RC Lending took legal steps toward foreclosure by filing a Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure, which ultimately led to the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in its name.

The signatures on the Real Estate Mortgage and the corresponding Affidavit were forged.
Atty. Parado neglected to require valid identification from the parties, accepting documents such as Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) which are insufficient under the Rules on Notarial Practice.
The notarial acts were performed despite Parado not having the proper notarial commission, as evidenced by a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu.

Additionally, Fatima highlighted the questionable mental state of Theresa, one of the mortgagors, and noted that Parado’s actions might have compromised the validity and public faith in the notarized documents.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued orders directing Atty. Parado to answer the complaint and attend a mandatory conference.

An initial order dated September 17, 2009, required submission of an answer within fifteen (15) days.
A Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued on February 17, 2011, with a scheduled meeting on March 16, 2011; however, Parado failed to appear.
A subsequent order reset the conference to April 6, 2011, which again saw his non-appearance.
The CBD then terminated the conference and required both parties to submit their position papers within ten (10) days.

In her position paper, Fatima reiterated the allegations of unethical conduct and the unauthorized performance of notarial acts by Parado.
Atty. Parado did not submit his position paper, effectively foregoing a defense in the IBP proceedings.

Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero noted that Parado had testified in court that the parties personally appeared and affixed their signatures and thumb marks.
The Commission found no evidence that the documents were forged; however, it determined that Parado was dishonest in his testimony regarding the validity of his notarial commission.

Parado claimed his notarial commission was effective until 2008, which was contradicted by the RTC’s certification stating he had no commission for 2006.

Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Revocation of his notarial commission (if presently commissioned) with disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted and approved, with modifications, the Report and Recommendation.

The Court reviewed the factual and documentary records, confirming that Atty. Parado performed notarizations in 2006 without possessing a valid notarial commission as required by the certification from the RTC.
The Court noted that even if a commission were at issue, Parado’s failure to demand competent evidence of identity (as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) was a significant lapse.
The performance of notarial acts, which transform private documents into public documents with full faith and credit, was deemed a duty of utmost importance that Parado neglected.

Whether Atty. Sylvester C. Parado performed notarial acts without possessing a valid notarial commission, as evidenced by the RTC’s certification.

The core legal question revolved around the authorization to notarize documents and the compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Whether not requiring competent evidence of identity from the parties constituted a violation of notarial protocols and ethical standards.

The matter extended to the sufficiency of the identification documents (e.g., CTCs) presented before him.

Whether Parado’s testimony—asserting that he held a valid notarial commission effective until 2008—was deliberately misleading, constituting a breach of ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The investigation scrutinized whether such presentation of false information should attract disciplinary measures.

The appropriate disciplinary measure that should be imposed on a lawyer who not only performs unauthorized notarial acts but also fails to comply with administrative proceedings and procedural defenses.