Title
Mariano vs. Echanez
Case
A.C. No. 10373
Decision Date
May 31, 2016
Atty. Echanez performed unauthorized notarial acts without a valid commission, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, and failed to participate in IBP proceedings, resulting in a two-year suspension and permanent notarial disqualification.
suspension
notary public
notarial commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186538)

The Complaint and the Evidence of Lack of Authority

Petitioner alleged that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts “on documents without a notarial commission.” She attached documentary submissions to support her claim, including (1) a complaint dated June 18, 2007; (2) a Joint-Affidavit of Gina Pimentel and Marilyn Cayaban dated May 8, 2008; (3) an affidavit of Ginalyn Ancheta dated May 8, 2008; and (4) another Joint-Affidavit dated May 8, 2008. Petitioner also submitted (5) a document listing persons issued notarial commissions for the year 2006–2007 signed by Executive Judge Efren Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, showing that respondent’s name was not included as duly appointed notary public.

Petitioner further invoked certificates and certifications from Executive Judges. Specifically, petitioner relied on a Certificate of Lack of Authority for a Notarial Act issued by Executive Judge Anastacio D. Anghad indicating that Atty. Echanez was not commissioned as a notary public for and within the jurisdiction of the RTC, Santiago City at the time of the alleged unauthorized notarization on May 8, 2008. She likewise submitted a certification by Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian enumerating lawyers commissioned as notary public within and for the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for the term 2007–2008, which also did not include respondent.

IBP-CBD Proceedings and Respondent’s Non-Participation

Upon the filing of the complaint affidavit, the IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Echanez to submit an answer. Respondent moved for an extension to file his answer, yet he failed to submit any answer. The IBP-CBD thus deemed him in default.

During the mandatory conference on July 24, 2009, only petitioner appeared. The IBP-CBD directed the parties to submit position papers, but again only petitioner submitted a verified position paper. In her position paper, petitioner maintained that Atty. Echanez was unauthorized to perform notarial services, and she reiterated her supporting certifications and lack-of-authority evidence.

After further processing, on May 14, 2011, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XIX-2011-273 remanding the case to the investigating commissioner to refer the documents to the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, which issued Atty. Echanez’s notarial commission, for proper verification.

IBP-CBD Report and Recommended Sanction

In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Echanez liable for malpractice for notarizing documents without a notarial commission. The IBP-CBD also noted that respondent ignored the IBP processes by failing to file an answer despite the order to do so. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, and that he be permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public.

A Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-850 dated June 22, 2013 showed that the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD’s report and recommendation in toto. No motion for reconsideration was filed by either party, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court for final action.

Issues Framed by the Evidence and the Non-Answer

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Echanez, as a lawyer claiming the authority of a notary public, committed an actionable violation of the Notarial Law and corresponding ethical obligations by performing notarial acts on documents without a valid notarial commission, and whether the proposed penalty of suspension and permanent disqualification from future notarial commissions was warranted.

A secondary issue was respondent’s conduct in the disciplinary proceedings—particularly his failure to submit an answer, failure to appear at the mandatory conference, and failure to file a position paper—despite notice and directives from the IBP, which the Court treated as aggravating evidence of disregard for lawful processes.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner argued that respondent was not authorized to perform notarial services at the time of the unauthorized notarizations, and that the absence of his name from the relevant listings of commissioned notaries, together with the certificates issued by Executive Judges within the pertinent territorial jurisdictions, sufficiently established lack of authority. She also pointed out that the notarization was not a mere technical lapse, because notarization confers public character and evidentiary weight to private documents.

Petitioner likewise implied that respondent’s misrepresentation of notarial authority and his failure to mount a defense during the IBP proceedings demonstrated ethical violations under the lawyer’s oath and under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

The Court’s Findings on Lack of Notarial Commission and Misrepresentation

The Court held that notarization is not a routine act. It stressed that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, since only those qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties.

Applying these principles, the Court found it “undisputable” that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents without a valid notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarizations. The Court further held that the fact of lack of notarial commission was established by certifications issued by Executive Judges in the territory where respondent performed the unauthorized notarial acts.

The Court also found that respondent committed a form of falsehood by misrepresenting in the notarized documents that he was a notary public for and in a specified locale (Cordon, Isabela), when it was apparent and uncontroverted that he was not. This falsehood, the Court ruled, was inconsistent with the lawyer’s oath and violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on dishonest and deceitful conduct.

Ethical and Disciplinary Consequences: Jurisprudential Comparisons

The Court relied on prior disciplinary rulings involving notarization without proper authority. It cited Nunga v. Viray, where the Court suspended a lawyer for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. It also cited Zoreta v. Simpliciano, where the Court imposed a two (2)-year suspension and permanently barred the respondent from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing documents after the expiration of the respondent’s commission. The Court further referenced Laquindanum v. Quintana, where the Court suspended the lawyer for six (6) months and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years due to notarizing outside the area of the commission and with an expired commission.

The Court treated respondent’s acts as part of a continuing threat to the integrity of notarization, given that the notarized documents gain legal status through the notary’s supposed authority.

Respondent’s Conduct Before the IBP as Additional Basis for Liability

Beyond the notarial violations themselves, the Court examined respondent’s behavior during the IBP proceedings. It noted that despite notices, respondent did not present any defense. He did not even attend the mandatory conference set by the IBP. He ignored directives to file his answer and position paper, which contributed to prolonged delay in resolving the case.

The Court held that such conduct runs counter to the ethical precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and violates the lawyer’s oath, particularly the duty to avoid delaying others for money or malice. Citing Ngayan v. Tugade, the Court explained that a lawyer’s failure to answer and failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of flouting lawful orders of the court and illustrate deficiency in respect for the oath of office, in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

The Court further reas

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms