Case Summary (A.C. No. 3727)
Allegations and Investigation
The central allegation by the complainants is that Atty. Barrera continued to notarize various documents long after his commission expired. The specific documents involved include a complaint for ejectment related to Civil Case No. 109 in the City Court of Iloilo, several affidavits by plaintiff Candelaria Dayot, a deed of sale, and a contract to sell, all purportedly notarized by Atty. Barrera between 1989 and 1990. After receiving the complaint on August 24, 1991, and after Atty. Barrera's comment dated January 9, 1992, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation.
Findings and Respondent's Defense
The IBP Iloilo Chapter's report, dated July 15, 1992, confirmed that Atty. Barrera notarized five documents, along with four others under a separate complaint, without a renewed commission. Atty. Barrera admitted to notarizing the documents but attributed his failure to renew his commission to inadvertence and alleged negligence on the part of his secretary. He claimed there was no intention to mislead or harm the public and stated that he stopped notarizing once he learned his commission had expired. He also filed a petition for confirmation of his past notarial acts in October 1991.
Court's Perspective on Unauthorized Notarization
The court, however, emphasizes that a notary public's duty is taken seriously and that Atty. Barrera's casual approach to the renewal of his commission undermines the legal framework outlined in Section 2632 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. This section clearly stipulates penalties for individuals who notarize documents after their authority has expired, which underlines the public interest in ensuring the integrity of notarized documents.
Implications of Falsification of Public Documents
The court reasons that the five unauthorized notarizations constitute gross misconduct and violations of law. Drawing parallels to past cases, such as Joson v. Baltazar, where similar actions were deemed as malpractice and led to disbarment, the court asserts that Atty. Barrera's behavior aligns with these precedents. The act of notarization converts private documents into public records, thus posing a significant risk when
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 3727)
Case Overview
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by complainants Nelson Buensuceso, Cornelio De Runa, Gloria De La Pena, Jose Andrada, and Salvacion Jablo against Atty. Joelito T. Barrera.
- The primary charge against Atty. Barrera is the unauthorized notarization of various documents after his notarial commission expired in 1978.
- The complaint was formally instituted on August 24, 1991, and the issue was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
Allegations Against Atty. Barrera
- Complainants allege that Atty. Barrera continued to notarize documents despite his commission having expired, which constitutes a serious violation of notarial laws.
- Specific documents notarized by Barrera include:
- A complaint for ejectment in Civil Case No. 109, City Court of Iloilo, Branch 1.
- An affidavit executed by Candelaria Dayot dated September 26, 1990.
- A supplemental affidavit dated October 12, 1990, executed by Candelaria Dayot.
- A deed of sale dated August 14, 1990, between Remedios Jocson, Teresa Padilla, and New Gold Star Management and Development Corporation.
- A contract to sell dated July 29, 1990, between Candelario Dayot and Ramon Que.
Proceedings and Findings
- After the complaint was