The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney is administratively liable for notarizing and submitting an altered legal document, emphasizing the crucial role of notaries public in maintaining the integrity of public instruments. This decision underscores the responsibility of lawyers to ensure the accuracy of documents they notarize, and it highlights the potential consequences for failing to uphold this duty. The Court found Atty. Rolando B. Miranda guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility for submitting an altered Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to a court. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to legal professionals about the importance of diligence, honesty, and ethical conduct in their practice.
The Case of the Dubious Document: Can a Lawyer’s ‘Oversight’ Excuse an Altered SPA?
This case arose from an ejectment complaint filed by Elena Biete Leones Vda. de Miller against Clarita Rodriguez Magbuhos. Corazon P. Manansala, claiming to be Magbuhos’s attorney-in-fact, appeared in court with Atty. Rolando B. Miranda as counsel, presenting a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by Miranda. However, the original SPA authorized Manansala to act on matters concerning “the cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais,” not the ejectment case. Subsequently, an altered SPA was submitted with handwritten insertions purporting to grant authority over “my property located at Purok 6, Aguinaldo St., Sapang Bato, Angeles City.” The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) rejected the altered SPA, leading to the filing of an administrative complaint against Atty. Miranda.
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Miranda should be held administratively liable for submitting the altered and notarized SPA. The complainant argued that Miranda’s actions were immoral, improper, and unlawful. Miranda, in his defense, claimed the alterations were an “honest mistake or oversight,” blaming his secretary for the initial error and asserting that Magbuhos verbally authorized the changes. He explained that he instructed his secretary to correct the document but failed to proofread the final version before notarizing it.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended sanctions, finding Miranda administratively liable. The IBP emphasized that a notary public must exercise utmost care and cannot delegate responsibility for errors to subordinates. While the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty, the fundamental finding of liability remained. This case highlights the critical function of a notary public, whose seal transforms a private document into a public instrument, thereby lending it evidentiary weight and credibility. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but an act imbued with public interest. The Court has repeatedly stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest.
The important role a notary public performs cannot be overemphasized. The Court has repeatedly stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, stemming from A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, further outline the responsibilities of notaries public. These rules mandate proper record-keeping in a Notarial Register and prohibit actions that could lead to revocation of commission or administrative sanctions. The act of notarization carries significant weight; it assures the public that the document has been duly executed and that the signatures are genuine. This assurance is critical for the orderly conduct of legal and commercial transactions. A breach of this duty undermines public confidence in the legal system.
In this case, Atty. Miranda’s actions fell short of the required standard of care. Despite claiming the error was unintentional, the fact remains that he notarized an SPA with incorrect information and subsequently submitted an altered version to the court. The court emphasized that Miranda’s failure to carefully review the document before notarization constituted negligence. His reliance on his secretary was not a valid excuse, as attorneys are ultimately responsible for the work performed under their supervision. Furthermore, the alterations made to the SPA without proper authentication raised serious concerns about the integrity of the document. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Court determined that Miranda’s actions violated this rule.
The court rejected Miranda’s argument that he had obtained verbal authorization from Magbuhos to make the alterations, deeming it self-serving and lacking credible evidence. The act of altering a notarized document without proper protocol not only damages those directly affected but also erodes public trust in the legal profession. Therefore, the court found Atty. Miranda liable both as a notary public and as a lawyer. The Supreme Court referenced similar cases in determining the appropriate penalties for Atty. Miranda’s misconduct, aligning the sanctions with established precedents. This consistency ensures fairness and predictability in disciplinary actions against erring lawyers.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Miranda should be held administratively liable for notarizing and submitting an altered Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to the court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he was liable. |
| What did Atty. Miranda claim in his defense? | Atty. Miranda claimed that the alterations were an “honest mistake or oversight,” blaming his secretary for the initial error and asserting that Magbuhos verbally authorized the changes. However, the Court did not find this argument persuasive. |
| What is the role of a notary public? | A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. |
| What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Miranda? | The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. These penalties were effective immediately. |
| What rule did Atty. Miranda violate? | Atty. Miranda violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” He also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. |
| Why was his secretary not held responsible? | The court found that attorneys are ultimately responsible for the work performed under their supervision. Therefore, Miranda’s attempt to shift blame to his secretary was not accepted as a valid defense. |
| What was the effect of the altered SPA? | The altered SPA was submitted to the MTCC in an attempt to show that Corazon Manansala was authorized to act on behalf of Clarita Magbuhos in the ejectment case. However, the alterations were deemed improper and the document was rejected. |
| What is the significance of this ruling? | This ruling underscores the importance of diligence, honesty, and ethical conduct among legal professionals. It serves as a stern reminder to lawyers about their responsibilities as notaries public. |
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a powerful reminder of the ethical responsibilities that come with being a lawyer and a notary public. It reinforces the idea that attorneys must maintain the highest standards of integrity and diligence in their practice. The ruling sends a clear message that any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate sanctions.
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: ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE MILLER VS. ATTY. ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015