Case Summary (A.C. No. 12552)
Factual Background
Sometime in March 2019, a person identified as Princess Ivory Cabaguas Villanueva requested the office of Judge Santillan to issue a Certificate of Notarial Act indicating that Atty. Solilapsi had recently notarized a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment. In the course of dealing with the request, Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized the subject documents in March 2019, notwithstanding the fact that Atty. Solilapsi’s notarial commission had expired in December 2018.
On March 18, 2019, Judge Santillan issued Memorandum No. 8, Series of 2019, directing Atty. Solilapsi to explain and show cause why disciplinary action should not be imposed against him. In his Letter-Explanation, Atty. Solilapsi stated that the documents had been notarized by his law office, and he claimed that he only became aware of their existence when his attention was called to the matter. He further alleged that the documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.
By Letter dated March 27, 2019, Judge Santillan reported the incident to the Office of the Court Administrator and recommended the filing of an administrative complaint for violation of the Notarial Rules. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) acknowledged the administrative complaint on June 3, 2019, and recommended that it be referred to Judge Santillan for investigation and adjudication.
Administrative Investigation and Findings
In a Resolution dated July 24, 2019, the Court adopted the OBC’s recommendation, treated Judge Santillan’s letter dated March 27, 2019 as an official report, docketed the matter as a regular administrative case, and referred it to Judge Santillan for investigation.
During the investigation, Judge Santillan identified the subject notarizations as follows: the Certificate of End of Contract was the 208th document notarized after the lapse of Atty. Solilapsi’s commission in December 2018, and the Affidavit of Employment was the 331st document notarized after the same expiration. Judge Santillan concluded that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized more than 300 legal documents while his notarial commission had already expired. For that reason, Judge Santillan did not accept Atty. Solilapsi’s excuse that the documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.
In a Report and Recommendation dated January 6, 2020, Judge Santillan recommended that Atty. Solilapsi be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, covering January 2020 to December 2021, for notarizing more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission.
On September 21, 2020, the Court resolved to treat the Report and Recommendation as an administrative complaint and required Atty. Solilapsi to comment within ten (10) days from notice. The Court proceeded to decide the case on the merits after no comment was filed.
The Parties’ Contentions
The core issue placed before the Court was whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for having notarized more than three hundred legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission.
Atty. Solilapsi relied on explanations anchored on alleged lack of personal knowledge and authorization. He claimed that his office staff notarized the documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission, and that he only learned of the notarizations when his attention was called to the matter.
The administrative findings credited by Judge Santillan, however, established that the notarizations occurred after the expiration of his commission, and that the scale of the acts involved more than 300 documents. The Court therefore treated the claimed lack of knowledge as insufficient to absolve him from administrative responsibility.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest, and thus only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. In line with this principle, the Court held that those not qualified or not authorized to act must be precluded from exercising authority upon the public, the courts, and administrative offices. Consequently, without the requisite notarial commission, a lawyer is proscribed from performing any notarial acts allowed under the Notarial Rules.
Applying these principles, the Court found it undisputed that Atty. Solilapsi notarized more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission. It further held that his claim that his office staff notarized the documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission was not an acceptable excuse. The Court emphasized that as a notary public, Atty. Solilapsi had a bounden duty to ensure that only those who are qualified or authorized act as notaries public. He could not evade that responsibility by disclaiming knowledge and blaming his staff.
The Court also rejected as incredible Atty. Solilapsi’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the notarization of over 300 documents executed in his name and within his law office. The Court reasoned that it was contrary to natural human experience to accept that a lawyer would be unaware of such a volume of notarizations.
To support administrative accountability for unauthorized notarization, the Court invoked Nunga v. Atty. Viray, where it ruled that a member of the Bar who notarizes a document without authorization or a valid commission may face disciplinary action for violating both the Notarial Rules and the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. Similarly, by performing notarial acts with an expired notarial commission, the Court found that Atty. Solilapsi violated Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as well as the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court cited these CPR provisions to underscore the ethical duties of lawyers: Canon 1 requires a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes, while Rule 1.01 prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 commands lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support activities of the integrated bar.
The Court also acknowledged that in prior cases it had imposed varying penalties depending on gravity, including suspension from the practice of law ranging from two to three years and, in appropriate cases, permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court reiterated its willingness to impose heavier penalties for casual violations of the Notarial Rules and for disregarding sworn duties.
Given the finding that Atty. Solilapsi notarized more than 300 documents with an expired commission, the Court deemed it proper to impose both a two-year suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Ruling of the Court
The Court declared Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial P
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12552)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Judge Adelbert S. Santillan acted as the complainant in the administrative proceeding.
- Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi acted as the respondent facing administrative discipline.
- The Court initially received a matter recommended by Judge Santillan in a Report and Recommendation dated January 6, 2020.
- The Court adopted the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommendation in a Resolution dated July 24, 2019 and treated the complaint material as an official report.
- The Court required Atty. Solilapsi to comment after a Resolution dated September 21, 2020.
- Atty. Solilapsi did not file any comment within the period stated by the Court, and the Court proceeded to decide on the merits.
- The Court found the respondent administratively liable and modified the recommended penalty in light of prevailing jurisprudence.
Key Factual Allegations
- In March 2019, a person identified in the records as Princess Ivory Cabaguas Villanueva requested Judge Santillan to issue a Certificate of Notarial Act regarding notarizations allegedly made by Atty. Solilapsi.
- Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized documents in March 2019 despite the expiration of his notarial commission in December 2018.
- On March 18, 2019, Judge Santillan issued Memorandum No. 8, Series of 2019 directing the respondent to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken.
- Atty. Solilapsi replied that the documents were notarized by his law office staff, and that he only learned of the notarizations when his attention was called.
- The respondent also claimed that the staff notarized the documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.
- Judge Santillan reported the incident to the Office of the Court Administrator and recommended the filing of an administrative complaint.
- During the investigation, Judge Santillan identified the Certificate of End of Contract as the 208th document and the Affidavit of Employment as the 331st document notarized after the lapse of the respondent’s commission.
- The investigation established that Atty. Solilapsi notarized more than 300 legal documents after his notarial commission expired.
- Judge Santillan rejected the respondent’s excuse based on the extent of the notarizations and the lack of credible explanation.
Issues Presented
- The Court resolved whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for notarizing more than 300 legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission.
Applicable Notarial and Professional Rules
- The Court recognized that notarization is a public act invested with substantive public interest, and that only persons qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
- The Court held that a lawyer without the requisite notarial commission is proscribed from performing any notarial act under the Notarial Rules.
- The Court specifically found that Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice governs the term and jurisdiction of a notary’s authority.
- The Court ruled that performing notarial acts after the commission’s expiration violates Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules.
- The Court held that the respondent’s acts also violated the Lawyer’s Oath.
- The Court held that the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively require lawful and honest conduct and demand the maintenance of the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
- The Court cited its established practice of imposing disciplinary measures on lawyers for notarizing with expired commissions and treated the respondent’s conduct as falling within that line of cases.