Case Summary (G.R. No. 143868)
Procedural History and Allegations
Coquia filed a Petition for Disbarment (dated February 6, 2012) accusing Atty. Laforteza of conduct unbecoming a lawyer for notarizing and administering oaths to the two subject documents on January 7, 2009, asserting the signatures and oath were forged because she was attending classes in Manila at the time. The Office of the Bar Confidant referred the complaint; the Supreme Court required respondent’s comment; the matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and report; the IBP‑Commission on Bar Discipline initially recommended dismissal for lack of evidence, but the IBP Board of Governors reversed that recommendation and imposed a reprimand and caution.
Respondent’s Explanation and Admissions
Atty. Laforteza denied conspiracy and direct participation in document preparation but admitted he subscribed the jurat on January 7, 2009. He recounts that Luzviminda introduced the parties and requested his assistance; he initially hesitated and suggested a notary public but was persuaded to assist. He stated he propounded questions and believed the persons before him were the signatories, but admitted he did not personally know Coquia or Clemente, did not verify identity with documentary evidence, and that Coquia did not sign in his presence — he relied on others’ assurances. He invoked the presumption of regularity, apologized if his act was improper, and denied collusion with the Solises.
Evidence and Witness Statements
Clemente and Luzviminda executed a joint affidavit denying collusion with Atty. Laforteza, asserting they convinced him to notarize and that Clemente personally signed and witnessed Coquia’s signature. Coquia submitted a certified faculty time record from Centro Escolar University purporting to show she was in Manila during the time of the alleged notarization. During the mandatory IBP conference, parties agreed respondent could administer oaths ex officio but acknowledged respondent’s failure to personally know the signatories and his reliance on fellow court employees to identify them.
IBP Findings and Supreme Court Referral
The IBP‑CBD recommended dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence. The IBP Board of Governors reversed and reprimanded Atty. Laforteza, finding misconduct warranting admonition. The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP recommendations and the record, applying the applicable standards for administrative and notarial discipline.
Standard of Proof and Burden in Lawyer Discipline
The Court reiterated that administrative cases for disbarment or suspension require preponderant evidence and that the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in official acts; in the absence of cogent proof, suspicion or speculation cannot sustain disciplinary sanctions.
Court’s Conclusion on Allegation of Conspiracy
The Court found Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence that Atty. Laforteza participated in, or colluded to prepare, the subject documents. While suspicion could suggest involvement, the Court declined to give evidentiary weight to such speculation where no supporting proof was presented; thus, the conspiracy allegation was not substantiated.
Legal Standard on Ex‑Officio Notarial Authority
The decision restated established law that ex‑officio notaries public (including clerks of court) have limited authority: they may perform notarial acts only insofar as those acts relate to their official functions. The Court cited Borre v. Moya and subsequent jurisprudence holding that ex‑officio notaries may notarize documents unrelated to official duties only under strict exceptions (e.g., certification of lack of other notaries in the municipality and charging notarial fees to government accounts), which were not met here.
Application of Notarial Law to the Facts
It was undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized and administered oaths to private documents unrelated to his official functions and to a civil case not even raffled to Branch 68. He therefore exceeded the permissible scope of his ex‑officio authority. The Court emphasized prior rulings that clerks of court should not, in their ex‑officio capacity, engage in notarization of private documents bearing no relation to their official duties; such acts constitute unauthorized notarial acts, unauthorized practice of law, and abuse of authority.
Failures Under the Rules on Notarial Practice
The Court found multiple breaches of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: respondent notarized a pre‑signed instrument; he failed to personally verify the identity of the signatories through competent evidence (e.g., ID with photo and signature); the acknowledgment portion lacked required identifying details; and he executed an incomplete notarial certificate. These lapses demonstrated failure to exercise the due diligence required of a notary public. The Court reiterated the essential purpose of notarization: to verify personal appearan
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143868)
Case Caption, Docket and Decision
- Reported at 805 Phil. 400; Second Division, A.C. No. 9364 (formerly CBD Case No. 13-36960).
- Decision penned by Justice Peralta, dated February 8, 2017.
- Parties: Flordeliza E. Coquia (complainant) vs. Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza (respondent).
- Nature of action before the Court: Petition for Disbarment / administrative proceedings for Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer arising from alleged unauthorized notarization and related notarial law violations.
- Final disposition: Notarial commission revoked (if any), respondent disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year, stern warning, and directives for distribution of the decision and copies to relevant offices.
Relevant Dates and Official Positions
- Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza served as Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan from November 17, 2004 until January 31, 2011.
- On February 1, 2011, Atty. Laforteza transferred to the Department of Justice.
- Footnote reports appointment as Prosecutor II in the OPP-Pangasinan on January 8, 2016.
- Complaint (Petition for Disbarment) filed by Flordeliza E. Coquia dated February 6, 2012 and docketed as A.C. No. 9364.
Underlying Civil Matter and Subject Documents
- The controversy involves documents relative to Civil Case No. 18943.
- Two (2) specific private instruments alleged to have been falsified and notarized on January 7, 2009:
- An Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia.
- A Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia.
- It is asserted these are private documents unrelated to respondent’s official functions and that one or both were notarized by Atty. Laforteza on January 7, 2009.
Complainant’s Allegations and Evidence
- Coquia alleged conspiracy between respondent and Clemente Solis to falsify the two subject documents and that respondent subsequently notarized them.
- Coquia asserted that on January 7, 2009 she was not physically present before Atty. Laforteza because she was attending classes at Centro Escolar University in Manila.
- Evidence relied upon by complainant: certified true copy of the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record for the period December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009, which Coquia presented to show she was in Manila on January 7, 2009.
- Complainant’s legal claim included that a Clerk of Court, as ex officio notary public, is not authorized to administer oaths or notarize documents not related to his official functions and that respondent’s notarization therefore constituted unauthorized notarial act and conduct unbecoming.
Respondent’s Comment, Explanation and Admissions
- Respondent filed a Comment dated July 2, 2012 denying intentional misconduct or conspiracy.
- Factual account offered by respondent:
- On January 7, 2009 Luzviminda Solis (wife of Clemente) and other persons came to him while he was attending to his work and introduced the persons as parties to the subject documents.
- Respondent initially hesitated and directed them to seek a notary public, but they insisted; respondent agreed to subscribe the jurat to assist them, believing in good faith that they were the parties to the documents.
- Respondent maintained he propounded several questions and was convinced the persons who came were the same parties to the documents.
- Respondent admitted key procedural shortcomings:
- He did not personally know Coquia or Clemente.
- He did not verify identity through official identification documents with photograph and signature, but relied on assurances of Luzviminda and allegedly on Lorna Viray, fellow court employees.
- He admitted Coquia did not sign the documents in his presence and acknowledged notarizing a pre-signed document.
- He admitted affixing his signature to an incomplete notarial certificate and that pertinent identification details were lacking in the acknowledgment portion.
- Respondent denied any conspiracy or collusion with the Solises and invoked the presumption of regularity in performance of official functions; he offered an apology should his act be deemed improper.
Statements and Joint Affidavit of the Solises
- Joint-affidavit dated July 2, 2012 of Clemente and Luzviminda Solis:
- Both denied connivance or conspiracy with respondent in the preparation and execution of the subject documents.
- They stated respondent initially refused to notarize but was persuaded to assist them in what they described as interest of justice.
- Clemente asserted he was one of the signatories and claimed personal knowledge that the signature of Coquia appearing on the documents were her true signatures, having seen her affix them.
IBP Proceedings, Recommendations and Actions
- Office of the Bar Confidant initially referred the complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, for appropriate action.
- On March 19, 2012 the Supreme Court required respondent to comment; respondent complied.
- The Court on October 11, 2012 referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
- IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2013 recommended dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence.
- IBP Board of Governors, by Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-818 dated October 11, 2014, reversed and set aside the IBP-CBD recommendation and instead reprimanded and cautioned Atty. Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties as subscribing officer.
Stipulations and Admissions at Mandatory Conference
- Mandatory conference revealed agreement on certain points:
- Both parties agreed that Atty. Laforteza was authorized to administer oaths as Clerk of Court ex officio.
- Parties also agreed respondent did not personally know Coquia and Clemente; respondent relied on Luzviminda and Lorna Viray to establish identities.
- Respondent admitted Coquia did not sign in his presence and that someone present claimed Coquia’s signature as hers.