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

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

Factual Allegations Against Atty. Siapno

Commissioned notaries from Lingayen alleged that Atty. Siapno maintained a notarial office in Lingayen and performed notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without a valid notarial commission for those territorial jurisdictions. Complainants asserted that Siapno had been commissioned only by the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan (March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008) and that his notarial commission had not been renewed after expiration. They further alleged delegation of notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas, who prepared and signed instruments purportedly on his behalf.

Documentary and Photographic Evidence

Complainants submitted photographs of a law office in Lingayen and specific notarized instruments indicating notarial acts occurring in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City. The documents identified in the record include: (1) an Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement (notarized in Lingayen, 2007); (2) a Deed of Absolute Sale (dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad); (3) a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons regarding name and birthdate (dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan); and (4) an Acknowledgement of Debt (dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan). These materials were relied upon to establish the location and timing of alleged notarial acts.

Procedural History and Initial Administrative Handling

The RTC-Lingayen forwarded the initial complaint to the OCA, which in turn indorsed it to the OBC. The Court directed the Executive Judge of RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation into the complaints against Atty. Siapno and ordered the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila to investigate alleged violations by Atty. Santos and the activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn. A hearing was conducted before the Executive Judge of RTC-Lingayen, during which complainants affirmed their allegations and Atty. Siapno denied ownership of the Lingayen office and denied that Bautista and Arenas were his secretaries.

Findings of the Executive Judge Regarding Commission Status

The Executive Judge’s report established Atty. Siapno’s notarial commission history: he was commissioned for Lingayen from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and from February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006; his commission was cancelled on June 8, 2006, and he was not granted any subsequent commission for Lingayen. The Executive Judge concluded that Siapno performed notarial functions without a valid commission and recommended a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

Legal Standard on Territorial Jurisdiction and Term of Notaries

The Court applied Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which provides that a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and for a two-year term commencing the first day of January of the year of commissioning, unless earlier revoked or resigned under the Rules and the Rules of Court. Under this standard, a notary who lacks a commission for a given territorial jurisdiction, or who acts outside the commissioned period, is not authorized to perform notarial acts in that territory.

Court’s Analysis on the Public Nature and Responsibility of Notarization

The Court emphasized that notarization is a substantive public function that converts private documents into public documents entitled to full faith and credit, and that notaries must therefore exercise utmost care and meet qualification and authorization requirements. By performing notarial acts without a requisite commission, Atty. Siapno violated his oath and breached Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct and require attorneys to uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession.

Reliance on Precedent and Need for an Appropriate Penalty

The decision noted prior disciplinary cases in which lawyers were suspended or otherwise sanctioned for notarizing outside their territorial jurisdiction or with expired commissions—examples include Nunga v. Viray (three-year suspension for notarizing without commission), Zoreta v. Simpliciano (two-year suspension and permanent bar from commission for notarizing after commission expiration), and Laquindanum v. Quintana (six-month suspension and two-year disqualification from commission for notarizing outside commission area and with expired commission). The Court found these authorities persuasive in assessing an appropriate sanction stronger than the Executive Judge’s recommended fine.

Disciplinary Disposition as to Atty. Siapno

Given the established unauthorized notarizations, the Court imposed disciplinary sanctions more severe than recommended by the Executive Judge: Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years an

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

Procedural Posture and Origin of the Case

This case arose from three separate letter-complaints for violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice which were endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for action.
The Court issued a Resolution dated June 9, 2009 directing formal investigations: the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lingayen, Pangasinan to investigate the complaint against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr., and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros of the RTC-Manila to investigate the matters involving Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn.
The complaint files and related documents were transmitted through the RTC-Lingayen to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and then to the OBC; docket references and rollo page citations are noted in the record.

Parties and Complainants

Complainants in the first letter (dated March 2, 2009) were commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan: Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade.
Respondent in the first complaint was Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr.
The second complainant was Audy B. Espelita, who filed against Atty. Pedro L. Santos.
The third complaint was lodged by a concerned citizen reporting a certain Atty. Evelyn alleged to be notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.

Factual Allegations Against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr.

Complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno maintained a notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and performed notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission.
They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City.
It was alleged that Atty. Siapno had been commissioned by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008 but that his notarial commission was never renewed upon expiration.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas, who wrote legal instruments and signed documents on his behalf.

Documentary Evidence Presented Against Atty. Siapno

Photographs of a law office allegedly of Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan.
Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement showing a Promissory Note notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007 (rollo reference).
Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan.
Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City.
Acknowledgement of Debt dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.
These documents were presented to prove that notarizations were performed in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City while the respondent lacked proper commission for those territorial jurisdictions.

Respondent Atty. Siapno’s Position at Formal Hearing

At the hearing conducted by the Executive Judge of RTC-Lingayen, the complainants affirmed their allegations.
Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and maintained that the law office in Lingayen was not his and that Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas were not his secretaries (rollo pp. 143-144).

Findings of the Executive Judge (RTC-Lingayen)

The Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was issued notarial commissions for Lingayen for the periods January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006.
The commission was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter.
The Executive Judge concluded that Atty. Siapno violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission by performing notarial functions without a valid commission and recommended a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

Legal Standard Applied: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

The Court cited Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice w