Professional Documents
Culture Documents
03 Zoreta vs. Simpliciano
03 Zoreta vs. Simpliciano
therefore as reprehensible, constituting as it does not only Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization, as
malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public evidenced by the following documents, viz.:
documents. For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has
sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, 1. 1.Verification executed by Aurora C. Galvez, President
2
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. to the pleading mentioned in par. 1 hereof, likewise
Disbarment. notarized by Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano as
alleged Notary Public in Quezon City, on February
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 18, 2002;
Jaromay, Baylon, Acorda, Landrito & Associates for 3. 3.The Affidavit of Service signed by a certain Renee L.
4
several documents during the year 2002 after his commission 4 Rollo, p. 28.
respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the another Legal Assistant of Simpliciano and Capela
latters counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not a duly Law Office, subscribed and sworn to before Atty.
commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano on 01 April 2002 at
Quezon City, as Notary Public. This Affidavit of 5
6
Rollo, p. 37.
Rollo, pp. 43-44.
Service was attached to defendants Motion (1) For 7 Rollo, p. 45.
9 Rollo, p. 77.
Verification and Certification Against Forum On 26 May 2003, counsel of respondent filed an ex-
Shopping was attached to defendants Motion For parte motion for extension of time to file answer.
11
Extension of Time To File Petition Under Rule 65 On 30 June 2003, petitioner filed a motion to resolve the 12
before the Court of Appeals; complaint after the extension requested by respondent ended
4. 6.The Affidavit of Service signed by a certain Joseph
7
on 30 May 2003, and almost a month had lapsed from 30
B. Aganan, another Legal Assistant in Simpliciano May 2003, with no comment or pleading filed by respondent.
and Capela Law Office subscribed and sworn to On 17 July 2003, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro issued
before Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano as an order, giving respondent a last chance to file his answer,
13
Notary Public on 16 August 2002. This Affidavit of otherwise the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution.
Service signed by Aganan was also attached to that Respondent failed to do so.
Motion For Extension of Time To File Petition under Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted her report and
Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals; recommendation dated 12 February 2004, pertinent portions
14
12
Rollo, pp. 83-86
Rollo, pp. 88-89.
13 Rollo, p. 92.
office respondent was not duly commissioned notary public for and in Quezon City conclusively establishes the misconduct imputed to
for the year 2002.
Another certification issued by the Clerk of Court of RTC Quezon City dated
respondent.
April 15, 2003 showed that as per records on file with their office respondent was The eight (8) notarized documents for the year 2002
commissioned notary public for and in Quezon City from January 14, 2000 to submitted by complainant, consisting of affidavits of merit,
December 31, 2001 and for the year 2002 and 2003 he did not apply for notarial
commission for Quezon City.
certifications and verifications against non-forum shopping,
It is evident from the foregoing that when respondent notarized the and affidavits of service, were used and presented in the
aforementioned documents, he was not commissioned as notary public, which was Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 74, in Civil
in violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590 documents after the
expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said
Case No. 01-6240, and in respondents petition
commission amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal profession. for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing the Undersigned respectfully recommends Against the evidence presented by complainant,
the revocation of respondents commission as notary public permanently if he is
commissioned as such at present and his suspension from the practice of law for a
respondent did not even attempt to present any evidence. His
period of three (3) months from receipt hereof furnishing the IBP Chapter where counsel filed an ex-parte motion for extension to file answer,
he is a registered member a copy hereof for implementation should this which was granted, but no answer was forthcoming. Still,
recommendation be approved by the Honorable members of the Board of
Governors. 15
Hearing Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro gave respondent a
Per Resolution No. XVI-2004-236 dated 16 April 2004, the last chance to file his answer; which was again unheeded.
Board of Governors modified the report and recommendation Thus, respondent was unable to rebut complainants evidence
of Commissioner Navarro of suspension of three (3) months that he was not so commissioned for the year in question. His
to a suspension of six (6) months. 16
lack of interest and indifference in presenting his defense to
We concur in the finding of the Investigating the charge and the evidence against him can only mean he
Commissioner that respondent Atty. Simpliciano did not has no strong and valid defense to offer. Conclusively,
have a commission as notary public in 2002 when he respondent Atty. Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned
notarized the assailed documents as evidenced by the two (2) Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002.
certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of the Regional At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of
Trial Court of Quezon City dated 04 October 2002. Records 17
law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
also show, and as confirmed by IBP Commissioner Navarro, those who show that they possess, and continue to possess,
that as of 02 August 2002, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
19
18 Rollo, p. 101.
19 Bongalonta v. Castillo, CBD Case No. 176, 20 January 1995, 240 SCRA 310. 20 Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, 18 September 1992, 214 SCRA 1.
9 21 A.C. No. 4539, 14 May 1997, 272 SCRA 408.
22 Id., at p. 413.
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of
the legal profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be
22 law, revocation of the notarial commission and
disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment. 26
duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory In the case of Nunga v. Viray, the Court had occasion to
27
grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of state that where the notarization of a document is done by a
Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no
any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
capacity. 23 subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a
Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically notarial without such commission is a violation of the
stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act commissioned when he is
as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily
_______________
requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be
24 Ibid.; Arrieta v. Llosa, A.C. No. 4369, 28 November 1997, 282 SCRA 248, cited
_______________ in Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 30 April 1999, 306 SCRA 487.
25
26
Buensuceso v. Barrera, A.C. No. 3727, 11 December 1992, 216 SCRA 309, 312.
Heinz R. Heck v. Judge Anthony E. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cagayan
of the loan in favor of a certain bank, at a time when
de Oro City, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 329. he was not commissioned as a Notary Public. What
27 Supra.
aggravated respondents unlawful notarization was
11
the fact that the transaction involved was in favor of
VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 18, 2004 11
his son, who was then only eighteen years old and,
Zoreta vs. Simpliciano
therefore, a minor.
not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
4. 4.In Buensuceso v. Barrera, the lawyer was suspended
31
31 Supra.
o0o