The Supreme Court’s decision in Efigenia M. Tenoso v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez underscores the serious consequences for lawyers who engage in notarial practice without proper authorization. The Court suspended Atty. Echanez from the practice of law for two years and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period, emphasizing that lawyers must uphold the highest standards of morality, honesty, and integrity. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that misrepresenting oneself as a notary public undermines the integrity of legal documents and the public’s trust in the legal profession.

The Uncommissioned Notary: When Legal Authority is Assumed

This case arose from a complaint filed by Efigenia M. Tenoso against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, alleging that he was practicing as a notary public in Cordon, Isabela, without the proper commission from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela. Tenoso supported her claims with documents, including lists from the RTC that did not include Echanez’s name and copies of documents he purportedly notarized. The central legal question was whether Atty. Echanez violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by performing notarial acts without proper authorization.

The complainant, Efigenia M. Tenoso, presented compelling evidence to support her allegations. This evidence included official lists from the RTC of Santiago City, which conspicuously omitted Atty. Echanez’s name from the roster of commissioned notaries public for the relevant years. Furthermore, she submitted copies of ten documents that appeared to have been notarized by Atty. Echanez during the period in question. A certification from Judge Cacatian further corroborated the claim, stating that a joint-affidavit notarized by Echanez could not be authenticated due to the absence of a notarial commission. This collection of evidence painted a clear picture of the attorney’s alleged unauthorized practice.

In stark contrast, Atty. Echanez offered a weak defense, primarily consisting of denials and unsubstantiated claims. He asserted that he had never notarized any documents or pleadings, dismissing the allegations as politically motivated and fabricated. He even suggested that the documents presented by the complainant were tampered with or forged. However, he failed to provide any concrete evidence to support these claims. Moreover, he neglected to attend the mandatory conference and failed to submit a position paper, further weakening his defense. His failure to present any credible evidence to counter the complainant’s claims ultimately proved detrimental to his case. Per Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof rests on the party asserting a claim or defense, which Atty. Echanez failed to meet.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Salvador B. Hababag, recommended that Atty. Echanez be suspended from the practice of law for six months and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This recommendation was based on violations of Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and from making false statements in court. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings but increased the suspension period to one year. The Supreme Court ultimately modified the IBP’s resolution, imposing a two-year suspension and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating that the practice of law is imbued with public interest, and lawyers have substantial duties to their clients, the profession, the courts, and the nation. The Court quoted In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILLON (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1), 174 Phil. 55, 62 (1978), highlighting that lawyers participate in the administration of justice as officers of the court. The Court also cited Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012, stressing that lawyers must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. These pronouncements reinforce the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession.

The Court also reiterated the significance of the role of notaries public, noting that their duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. The Court cited Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, A.C. No. 7781, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 1, 7, quoting Domingo v. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 227, 238, explaining that notarization transforms a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. This underscores the serious implications of unauthorized notarization, as it can lead to the acceptance of fraudulent or invalid documents as authentic.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court held that Atty. Echanez’s misrepresentation as a notary public exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers, and the general public to the risks of ordinary documents being treated as public instruments. This act of deceit and falsehood was a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and fell short of the high standards expected of lawyers. The Court’s decision to suspend Atty. Echanez and disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years reflects the severity of the offense and the need to protect the public from unauthorized legal practice.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in notarial practice without a valid commission.
What evidence did the complainant present?	The complainant presented lists of commissioned notaries public from the RTC that did not include Atty. Echanez, copies of documents he purportedly notarized, and a certification stating that his notarization could not be authenticated.
What was Atty. Echanez’s defense?	Atty. Echanez denied the allegations, claiming he never notarized documents and suggesting the evidence was tampered with, but he provided no supporting evidence.
What did the IBP recommend?	The IBP initially recommended a six-month suspension, which was later increased to one year by the Board of Governors.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Echanez from the practice of law for two years and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why is notarization important?	Notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity.
What ethical rules did Atty. Echanez violate?	Atty. Echanez violated Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession and the serious consequences for engaging in unauthorized notarial practice.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to all lawyers of the importance of adhering to the ethical standards and legal requirements of their profession. Engaging in unauthorized practice, such as notarizing documents without a proper commission, not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also erodes public trust in the legal profession. The Supreme Court’s decision in Tenoso v. Echanez underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding these standards and ensuring that lawyers are held accountable for their actions.

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: Efigenia M. Tenoso v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013