A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC - IN RE: Rules on Notarial Practice

Case Summary (A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC)

Letter-Complaint Against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr.

On March 2, 2009, four commissioned notaries public from Lingayen filed a complaint before the RTC-Lingayen alleging that Atty. Siapno maintained a notarial office in Lingayen and performed notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without a valid commission. They alleged that his only commission was granted by RTC-San Carlos City from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008, which expired and was never renewed. They further claimed he delegated notarial functions to secretaries Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas.

Evidence and Allegations (Siapno)

Complainants submitted photographs of Siapno’s office and documents showing notarizations outside his territorial commission, including:

Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement notarized in Lingayen (2007).
Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in Natividad (January 24, 2008).
Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons notarized in Dagupan City (January 6, 2009).
Acknowledgement of Debt notarized in Dagupan City (January 24, 2008).

Investigation and Findings (Siapno)

Pursuant to the Court’s June 9, 2009 resolution, the Executive Judge of the RTC-Lingayen held hearings. Complainants reaffirmed their allegations. Siapno denied ownership of the Lingayen office and disclaimed the secretaries. The Executive Judge’s report established that Siapno’s notarial commission (2003–2004; 2005–2006) had been cancelled on June 8, 2006 and not renewed. He nonetheless performed notarizations thereafter without authority.

Applicable Law on Notarial Practice

1987 Philippine Constitution grants the Supreme Court rule-making power over courts and lawyers. Under Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and only during the commission’s two-year term. The Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1 and 7) prohibits dishonest or deceitful conduct and requires lawyers to uphold the integrity of the profession.

Violations and Precedent

By notarizing documents with an expired commission outside his jurisdiction, Siapno contravened the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, his oath, and professional canons. The Court emphasized the public trust inherent in notarization and referred to precedents:
• Nunga v. Viray (suspension for notarizing without commission).
• Zoreta v. Simpliciano (suspension and permanent bar for out-of-jurisdiction notarizations).
• Laquindanum v. Quintana (suspension and disqualification for expired/out-of-area notarizations).

Penalty Imposed on Atty. Siapno

Considering the gravity and recurrence of violations, the Court:
– Suspended Atty. Siapno from the practice of law for two year