The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer notarizing documents outside their authorized jurisdiction constitutes malpractice and a breach of ethical duties. Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe was found guilty of notarizing a document in Marikina City when his commission was limited to Pasig City and other municipalities. This act violated the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to his suspension from law practice and disqualification from being a notary public.

Crossing Boundaries: When a Notary Public Exceeds Legal Limits

This case arose from a complaint filed by Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. against Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe. The core issue was whether Atty. Suerte-Felipe committed malpractice by notarizing a document in Marikina City despite being commissioned as a notary public only for Pasig City and other specified municipalities. The document in question was an “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva,” which Atty. Suerte-Felipe notarized, representing himself as a notary public for Marikina City. Almazan presented a certification from the Marikina City RTC, confirming that Atty. Suerte-Felipe was not commissioned there, while Atty. Suerte-Felipe countered with a certification from Pasig City RTC, proving his commission in that jurisdiction.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Suerte-Felipe guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath. The IBP reasoned that his notarial act in Marikina City was outside his territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the clear territorial limitations of a notary public’s authority. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly states:

Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Furthermore, Section 240, Article II of the Notarial Law found in the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 reinforces this principle:

Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

By misrepresenting himself as a notary public for Marikina City, Atty. Suerte-Felipe also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” This act of falsehood is particularly serious because it undermines the integrity of notarization, which is not a mere formality but a process invested with substantial public interest. The Supreme Court, citing Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales, emphasized that notarizing documents outside the authorized jurisdiction constitutes malpractice and falsification.

The Court further elaborated, quoting Nunga v. Atty. Viray, that performing a notarial act without proper commission violates the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws and involves deliberate falsehood, both of which are proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considered that Atty. Suerte-Felipe was a first-time offender and had acknowledged his wrongdoing. Consequently, the Court deemed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, along with a one-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, as sufficient.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Suerte-Felipe committed malpractice by notarizing a document outside his authorized territorial jurisdiction as a notary public.
Where was Atty. Suerte-Felipe authorized to perform notarial acts?	He was commissioned as a notary public for Pasig City and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999.
What document did Atty. Suerte-Felipe improperly notarize?	He notarized an “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva” in Marikina City.
What laws and ethical rules did Atty. Suerte-Felipe violate?	He violated the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
What was the basis for finding Atty. Suerte-Felipe guilty of malpractice?	His act of notarizing a document in a city where he was not commissioned, thereby exceeding his territorial jurisdiction as a notary public.
What penalty did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Suerte-Felipe?	He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and his notarial commission, if any, was revoked.
Why is notarization considered important?	Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, ensuring that only qualified and authorized individuals perform notarial acts, thus safeguarding the integrity of legal documents.
What mitigating factors did the Court consider in determining the penalty?	The Court considered that Atty. Suerte-Felipe was a first-time offender and had acknowledged his wrongdoing.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the territorial limitations of a notary public’s commission and the ethical obligations of lawyers. It serves as a reminder that misrepresentation and exceeding one’s authority can lead to serious disciplinary actions, impacting one’s professional standing and reputation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR. VS. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014