A.C. No. 12552 - Santillan vs. Solilapsi

A request was made by Princess Ivory Cabaguas Villanueva to the office of Judge Santillan for the issuance of a Certificate of Notarial Act.
The certificate was meant to attest that Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi had notarized a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment.

In connection with the request, Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi notarized the said documents in March 2019 even though his notarial commission had expired in December 2018.
This led to further verification, revealing that the documents notarized were among more than 300 legal documents executed after the expiration of his commission.

On March 18, 2019, Judge Santillan issued Memorandum No. 8, Series of 2019, directing Atty. Solilapsi to explain and show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed.
In response, Atty. Solilapsi submitted a Letter-Explanation, alleging that the documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge or permission.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2019, Judge Santillan formally reported the incident to the Office of the Court Administrator and recommended that an administrative complaint be filed against Atty. Solilapsi for violating the Notarial Rules.
On June 3, 2019, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) acknowledged the complaint and recommended its referral back to Judge Santillan for further investigation and adjudication.

During the investigation, Judge Santillan determined that the Certificate of End of Contract and the Affidavit of Employment were the 208th and 331st documents, respectively, notarized with the expired commission.
It was indisputably confirmed that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized in excess of 300 legal documents after the lapse of his notarial commission, thus negating his claim of lack of knowledge.

On January 6, 2020, Judge Santillan issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending the disqualification of Atty. Solilapsi from being commissioned as a notary public for a period covering January 2020 to December 2021.
On September 21, 2020, the Court treated the Report and Recommendation as an official administrative complaint, requiring Atty. Solilapsi to respond within 10 days; his failure to do so led the Court to proceed with the merits of the case without his comment.

Whether Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for notarizing more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission.

The central question is the applicability of administrative sanctions for notarizing documents after the expiration of the authorizing commission.
An ancillary issue is whether his claim that the notarizations were performed in his absence and without his permission can be accepted as a valid excuse under the administrative framework and prevailing jurisprudence.