Case Summary (A.C. No. 10928)
Antecedents of the Case
The administrative case was initiated from a letter-report submitted on September 24, 2015, by Judge Guerrero to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The report claimed that the respondent performed notarial acts after the expiration of her commission. An inventory of notarial records revealed that Atty. Giron had submitted reports for notarized documents beyond her commission's expiry date, with reported tampering of expiration dates on the notarized documents.
Respondent's Defense
In her comment to the letter-report, Atty. Giron contended that she believed her notarial commission remained valid until December 31, 2015. She claimed confusion regarding the term of her commission, stating her commission was valid during 2014 and 2015. Acknowledging her error, she emphasized good faith in her actions, asserting that the notarial acts were a rare occurrence occurring only for her clients.
Findings and Recommendations of Executive Judge
In the Report/Recommendation dated September 27, 2017, Judge Guerrero determined that the respondent was aware her notarial commission expired on December 31, 2014, as stated explicitly in her appointment document. The Executive Judge noted the substantial evidence of wrongdoing, including the tampered dates on notarized documents and that Atty. Giron notarized twenty-eight documents post-commission expiration. Consequently, Guerrero recommended a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, warning that any repeated offense would incur more severe penalties.
Ruling of the Court
The Court supported the Executive Judge's findings but found the recommended penalty insufficient. It reiterated that notarization serves a significant public interest, transforming a private document into a public document that is presumptively valid. The Court emphasized the regulatory obligation of notaries to observe strict compliance with the requirements of their office.
Legal and Ethical Violations
The Court ruled that Atty. Giron's actions constituted a breach of the lawyer's oath and the relevant notarial laws. Despite her claims of good faith, the tampered dates indicated an intention to deceive. The respondent's actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates integrity, honesty, and adherence to legal principles amongst lawyers.
Precedents and Disciplinary Actions
The Court referenced prior cases such as Nunga v. Atty. Viray, Zoreta v. A
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10928)
Background of the Case
- The administrative case arose from a letter-report dated September 24, 2015, submitted by Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
- The letter reported that Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron executed notarial acts despite the expiration of her notarial commission.
- An inventory conducted by the Office of the Clerk of Court revealed that Giron submitted notarial reports beyond her commission's expiration date.
- Evidence indicated that the dates on the notarial stamps of documents she notarized had been tampered with to misrepresent the validity of her commission.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Executive Judge Guerrero alleged that Giron notarized twenty-eight (28) documents after her commission expired on December 31, 2014.
- The documents included notarial reports that suggested the commission was still valid, despite Giron's acknowledgment that it had expired.
- The tampering of dates on the notarized documents raised concerns regarding Giron's integrity and adherence to notarial law.
Respondent's Defense
- In her comment, Giron maintained that she believed her notarial commission was valid until December 31, 2015.
- She claimed that her misunderstanding stemmed from her interpretation of the two-year term of her commission, which she thought covered 2014 a