G.R. No. L-24115 - Shaffer vs. Palma

On January 16, 2012, complainant Pablito L. Miranda, Jr. filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) – a Commission on Bar Discipline.
The complaint alleged that respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. notarized documents in 2010 despite his notarial commission for San Pedro, Laguna having expired on December 31, 2005, and not having been renewed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna.

Complainant presented details of three addresses in San Pedro, Laguna—Alvarez & Alvarez Law Office at Room 202, Fil-Em Building; Golden Peso Enterprises and Loan Center at Macaria Ave.; and Pacita Arcade/Commercial Complex—asserting these were locations where respondent maintained his notarial offices.
Photographic evidence of the respondent’s offices was submitted along with documents showing that respondent notarized:

A 2010 Application for Business Permit of Ronald Castasus Amante, which lacked valid proof of identification and contained a fictitious address.
A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Amante on December 7, 2010.

Complainant submitted Certification No. 11-0067 (dated October 5, 2011) from the Clerk of Court of RTC-San Pedro, asserting that respondent was commissioned as a notary public for San Pedro from 1998 to 2005.
A subsequent Certification No. 11-0053 (dated September 21, 2011) stated that no document (specifically the SPA) notarized by respondent for the year 2010 was on file with the Court’s clerk, supporting claims of non-compliance with procedural requirements.

It was further alleged that respondent authorized unlicensed persons to perform notarial acts using his signatures and stamps, thus also failing to present competent evidence of identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

In his Answer dated March 7, 2012, respondent claimed he was a duly commissioned notary public in 2010 in BiAan, Laguna, supported by Certification of Notarial Commission No. 2009-21 issued by the RTC-BiAan, Branch 24.
In later submissions, respondent reiterated his defense by maintaining he properly conducted his notarial work from his office in BiAan, Laguna, while attributing the San Pedro, Laguna office to management by his son.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC) issued a Report and Recommendation on April 19, 2013, finding the respondent administratively liable for multiple violations:

Notarization performed outside his jurisdiction and without a valid commission.
Notarization of documents lacking details necessary to verify the identity of the signer.
Failure to submit mandatory documents (monthly copies and entries) to the Clerk of Court.

As a result, the IBP-IC recommended revocation of the notarial commission (if any), perpetual disqualification as a notary public, and a suspension from the practice of law (initially for two years, later modified to one year, then contested).
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed by both respondent and complainant:

Respondent filed a motion asserting he maintained only one notarial office in BiAan.
Complainant countered and moved for reconsideration seeking disbarment, additionally referencing a Certification from May 7, 2015 that indicated respondent had been suspended from the practice of law since a 2000 resolution.

The IBP Board of Governors eventually denied complainant’s motion (Resolution dated August 31, 2017).

The issues surrounding the proper territorial jurisdiction of the notarial commission, non-compliance with the 2004 Notarial Rules, and respondent’s unauthorized practice of law while allegedly still under suspension led to the case’s elevation to the Court.
Evidence, including photographs and documents showing respondent’s active legal practice, raised concerns about his compliance with suspension orders and proper notarial conduct.

Whether the IBP correctly found respondent administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and related provisions under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether respondent performed notarial acts without a proper and valid notarial commission and outside the territorial jurisdiction prescribed by his commission.
Whether respondent’s notarization of documents lacking complete evidence of the signatory’s identity, including his failure to require the signatory’s personal appearance, constitutes gross negligence and grave misconduct.
Whether respondent’s failure to submit the mandated monthly documents to the Clerk of Court amounts to a violation serious enough to merit revocation and further disciplinary sanctions.
Whether the continued practice of law by respondent, despite the alleged suspension from the practice (as supported by prior certification), justifies additional penalties and contempt proceedings.