A.C. No. 2505 - Leda vs. Tabang

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Melanio L. Zoreta against Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano.
The allegations centered on the respondent notarizing several documents in 2002 after his notarial commission had expired.

Complainant contended that Atty. Simpliciano notarized documents despite his commission having expired on December 31, 2002.
The documents included:

A Verification executed by Aurora C. Galvez (dated February 18, 2002) attached to motions related to a complaint before Branch 4 of the RTC of Antipolo City.
Affidavits of Merit notarized on February 18, 2002, and Affidavits of Service executed on February 19, 2002; April 1, 2002; and August 16, 2002.
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping notarized on August 16 and August 19, 2002, linked to various pleadings and extension motions before the Court of Appeals.

Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City (dated October 4, 2002) and another from the RTC Quezon City (dated April 15, 2003) revealed:

Respondent was not duly commissioned as Notary Public for Quezon City for the year 2002.
His valid commission was only from January 14, 2000 to December 31, 2001.

Records indicated that respondent notarized a total of 590 documents in 2002 based on his notarial book entries, falsely implying a valid commission.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) of Pasig required respondent Atty. Simpliciano to submit his answer on April 23, 2003.
After an ex-parte motion for extension was filed on May 26, 2003, the petitioner moved to resolve the complaint as respondent failed to file any pleading by the deadline.
A final opportunity was given on July 17, 2003, by Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, which went unheeded by the respondent.

The investigating commissioner’s report (dated February 12, 2004) confirmed that respondent notarized documents without holding a valid commission, violating the Notarial Law.
Initially, the IBP’s Board of Governors recommended a suspension—from three months later modified to six months—for the misconduct.
The evidence was deemed conclusive as no counter-evidence was presented by the respondent.

The gravity of notarizing documents without a valid commission was highlighted as not only malpractice but also as conduct that vitiates the integrity of the legal profession.
The misconduct was considered gross and directly implicated the public trust reposed in notarial acts.

Whether Atty. Simpliciano notarized the documents when his notarial commission had already expired or was never renewed for the year 2002.
Whether the notarized documents acquired the full faith and credit as public documents despite the alleged absence of a valid commission.

Whether the failure of respondent to file a timely answer or any form of defense amounted to an admission of guilt or an inability to rebut the testimony against him.
Whether his misconduct, by notarizing without valid authority, constitutes grounds for not only disciplinary action but also for permanent revocation of his authority as notary public.

Whether such misconduct undermines the public confidence in the legal profession and the sanctity of notarized documents.
Whether disciplinary measures should serve more as a protective tool for maintaining the high standards required in the practice of law, rather than merely punitive.