The Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer who notarizes documents with the purpose of reducing a client’s tax liability violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This decision underscores the duty of lawyers to uphold the law and act with integrity, even when it conflicts with a client’s wishes. The Court emphasized that notarization is a solemn act imbued with public interest, and lawyers must not facilitate tax evasion or other illegal activities. This ruling serves as a stern warning to lawyers and notaries public to act ethically and responsibly in their professional duties.

Deception in Deeds: Can a Lawyer’s Pen Enable Tax Evasion?

This case arose from a complaint filed by Celia D. Mendoza against Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr., alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The central issue revolves around Atty. Santiago’s notarization of two Deeds of Absolute Sale for the same property, but with different amounts declared, purportedly to minimize the client’s tax obligations. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Atty. Santiago’s actions constituted professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

The facts of the case reveal that Atty. Santiago notarized an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver and Transfer of Rights, which led to the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of John Alexander Barlaan. Subsequently, Barlaan sold a portion of the property to Monette Abac Ramos, resulting in two Deeds of Absolute Sale. The First Deed of Sale indicated a price of P3,130,000.00, while the Second Deed of Sale, submitted to the Registry of Deeds, stated a lower amount of P1,500,000.00. This discrepancy prompted the complaint against Atty. Santiago, alleging that he facilitated tax evasion by notarizing the documents with differing amounts.

In his defense, Atty. Santiago argued that the complainant lacked legal personality to file the disbarment complaint and that his act of notarizing the deeds with different amounts was inconsequential because he had already submitted the documents to the relevant authorities. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Santiago liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP recommended a suspension from the practice of law and revocation of his notarial commission, which the IBP Board of Governors later modified to a two-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the IBP’s findings, emphasized that Atty. Santiago’s actions were indeed aimed at minimizing his client’s tax liability. The Court cited the case of Lopez v. Ramos, which involved similar circumstances, and reiterated that such conduct violates both the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court stated in Lopez v. Ramos:

Based on Delos Santos’ testimony, respondent told her that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale, in order to reduce the capital gains tax due on the transaction. Respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. Respondent violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR, to wit:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that lawyers uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.02 specifically prohibits lawyers from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. By notarizing the Second Deed of Sale with a lower amount, Atty. Santiago assisted his client in an activity aimed at defying the law, thus violating his oath as a lawyer.

The Court further emphasized the importance of the notarial act, stating that it converts a private document into a public document, which is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of the notarized document and the acts it embodies. As highlighted in Lopez v. Ramos, it is incumbent upon a notary public to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. As a lawyer, one is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.

Section 33(p), Canon VI of A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), considers a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice a serious offense. Given the gravity of the offense, the Court imposed the penalties of suspension from the practice of law for two years, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court underscored that the act of notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, reiterating that it is invested with substantive public interest.

The Court reminded notaries public that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. This underscores the need for notaries public to observe utmost care in performing their duties, as the public’s confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined otherwise. This ruling reinforces the principle that lawyers must act with integrity and uphold the law, even when faced with client demands that may compromise their ethical obligations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Santiago violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing two Deeds of Absolute Sale for the same property with different amounts, allegedly to minimize his client’s tax liability.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Santiago guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. He was suspended from the practice of law for two years, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why was Atty. Santiago penalized?	Atty. Santiago was penalized because he notarized the Second Deed of Sale with a lower amount than the First Deed of Sale, which the Court found was done to minimize his client’s tax liability. This action was deemed a violation of his oath as a lawyer and a breach of his duty to uphold the law.
What is the significance of the notarial act?	The notarial act is significant because it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. It is invested with substantive public interest, and notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties.
What is the duty of a lawyer regarding tax matters?	A lawyer has a duty to uphold the law and should not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. This includes refraining from assisting clients in evading taxes or other illegal activities.
What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility was violated?	Atty. Santiago was found to have violated Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which pertains to violations of notarial rules attended by bad faith.
What is the effect of the ruling on other lawyers?	This ruling serves as a stern warning to other lawyers and notaries public to act ethically and responsibly in their professional duties. It reinforces the principle that lawyers must act with integrity and uphold the law, even when faced with client demands that may compromise their ethical obligations.
What constitutes a serious offense under the CPRA?	Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, a violation of notarial rules, except reportorial requirements, when attended by bad faith, is considered a serious offense.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to the law for lawyers and notaries public. The ruling serves as a reminder that the pursuit of a client’s interests should never come at the expense of violating the law or compromising one’s professional integrity. The Court’s imposition of sanctions on Atty. Santiago reflects the seriousness with which it views such misconduct and the need to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

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: CELIA D. MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CESAR R. SANTIAGO, JR., A.C. No. 13548, June 14, 2023