Case Summary (A.C. No. 12196)
Allegations Against the Respondent
On January 16, 2012, Miranda filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that Alvarez notarized several documents in 2010 despite the expiration of his notarial commission in 2005. Miranda provided evidence supporting his allegations, including the addresses of Alvarez's notarial offices and specifics about documents notarized without proper authority.
Summary of Violations
Miranda claimed that Alvarez failed to adhere to multiple duties imposed by the Notarial Rules, including the registration of only one notarial office, filing monthly notarial reports, and ensuring competent evidence of identity for signatories. He also alleged that Alvarez authorized unlicensed individuals to perform notarial acts on his behalf.
Respondent's Defense
In his Answer dated March 7, 2012, Alvarez defended himself by asserting that he was duly commissioned as a notary public in Biñan, Laguna at the relevant time. Despite this claim, further evidence was presented indicating additional violations related to notarizing documents beyond his jurisdiction and without proper commissions.
Investigative Findings and Recommendations
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Alvarez administratively liable for multiple violations, including extending his notarial activities beyond jurisdiction and notarizing documents without verifying the identity of signatories. The Commissioner recommended revocation of Alvarez's notarial commission, perpetual disqualification as a notary public, and a two-year suspension from legal practice.
Resolution Modifications by IBP
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendations but reduced the suspension from two years to one year. After further proceedings, the complainant sought reconsideration arguing for Alvarez's disbarment, citing previously imposed suspensions not lifted adequately.
Supreme Court Review and Ruling
The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the IBP correctly found Alvarez administratively liable. The Court echoed the importance of notarization and its role in upholding public trust, emphasizing the requirement for notaries to strictly follow the Notarial Rules. It confirmed that Alvarez had committed numerous violations, including performing notarization without proper commission and failing to provide competent evidence of identity for signatories.
Additional Sentencing and Further Orders
In its decision, t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12196)
Introduction
- This case revolves around an administrative complaint filed against Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. by Pablito L. Miranda, Jr., seeking disbarment and perpetual disqualification as a notary public.
- The complaint alleges gross negligence, grave misconduct, and violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Background of the Case
- The complaint was filed on January 16, 2012, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.
- The complainant asserted that the respondent notarized documents in 2010 despite his notarial commission having expired on December 31, 2005.
- The respondent allegedly operated notarial offices in San Pedro, Laguna, despite lacking a valid commission for that jurisdiction.
Details of the Allegations
- Notarial Offices:
- Complainant identified several locations where the respondent purportedly maintained notarial services:
- Alvarez & Alvarez Law Office
- Golden Peso Enterprises and Loan Center
- Pacita Arcade/Commercial Complex
- Complainant identified several locations where the respondent purportedly maintained notarial services:
- Notarized Documents:
- Two specific notarized documents were cited:
- A 2010 Application for Business Permit lacking valid identification and containing a fictitious address.
- A Special Power of Attorney executed by Ronald Castasus Amante on December 7, 2010.
- Two specific notarized documents were cited:
- Supporting Evidence:
- The complainant provided certifications from the Clerk of Court affirming the expiration of the respondent's notarial commission and the absence of submitted documents for the year 2010.
Respondent's Defense
- In his Answer dated March 7, 2012, the respondent claimed he was commissioned as a notary public in