In Elizabeth Recio v. Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño, the Supreme Court addressed the professional responsibility of lawyers, particularly concerning notarial duties and misrepresentation. The Court found Atty. Fandiño negligent for failing to secure his notarial paraphernalia and for unauthorized representation of a client, ORASCO. This decision underscores the importance of diligence and integrity in legal practice, emphasizing that lawyers must be vigilant in safeguarding their notarial tools and ensuring proper authorization before representing clients to maintain public trust and prevent potential harm to parties involved.

When Trust Fails: Examining a Lawyer’s Negligence and Unauthorized Representation

The case began with a complaint filed by Elizabeth Recio, a bonds manager at Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO), against Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño, seeking his disbarment. Recio alleged that Atty. Fandiño was involved in the notarization of spurious ORASCO bail bonds and misrepresented himself as ORASCO’s counsel without authorization. This situation arose after ORASCO received court orders indicating that their bail bonds had been confiscated, only to discover that these bonds were fake, bearing forged signatures and incorrect office addresses. The irregularities pointed to Atty. Fandiño, whose law office address appeared on the forged documents.

Atty. Fandiño defended himself by stating that he had delegated his insurance business operations to Jeanette Cruz, who shared his office space and also conducted her own insurance business. He claimed that Cruz, along with Willy Vargas, were responsible for the issuance of the fake ORASCO bonds, and that he had no direct involvement. He admitted to signing pleadings related to the bonds but claimed they were prepared by Cruz based on motions he had previously filed in court regarding bond liability. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Fandiño negligent for not securing his notarial paraphernalia and for appearing in court without ORASCO’s authorization, recommending a six-month suspension.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the duties of a notary public as outlined in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 2 of Rule VII states:

Sec. 2. Official Seal.-

(a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. x x x

(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.

The Court highlighted Atty. Fandiño’s failure to comply with these rules, noting that he allowed his secretary, Cruz, to have full access to his notarial paraphernalia. This negligence facilitated the notarization of the spurious ORASCO bonds, constituting malpractice. This lack of oversight created an opportunity for fraud and misrepresentation, directly linking Atty. Fandiño’s negligence to the proliferation of the fake bonds.

Further, the Court addressed Atty. Fandiño’s unauthorized representation of ORASCO. The Court cited Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, which stated:

It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such an inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s authority and his ignorance of ‘that authority will not be any excuse.

Atty. Fandiño’s reliance on Vargas’s representation as ORASCO’s agent without verifying his authority was deemed a breach of his professional duty. The Court emphasized that lawyers must exercise due diligence to ensure they are properly authorized before representing a client. In this case, Atty. Fandiño’s actions not only prejudiced ORASCO but also affected numerous accused individuals whose bail bonds were compromised due to the fraudulent documents. This lack of verification highlighted a significant lapse in his professional conduct.

The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The Court referenced Gonzales v. Ramos, where similar violations of notarial practice resulted in disqualification from reappointment as notary public. This decision underscores the severity with which the Court views breaches of notarial duties and unauthorized representation.

The ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers of their ethical and professional obligations. Specifically, lawyers have a duty to safeguard their notarial paraphernalia and to diligently verify their authority to represent clients. Failure to do so can lead to severe consequences, including suspension from practice and disqualification from holding a notarial commission. By emphasizing these responsibilities, the Court aims to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public from potential harm.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Fandiño was negligent in his duties as a notary public and whether he engaged in unauthorized representation. The Court examined his responsibility in securing his notarial paraphernalia and verifying his authority to represent ORASCO.
What did Atty. Fandiño do wrong?	Atty. Fandiño was found negligent for allowing his secretary access to his notarial seal and documents, leading to the notarization of fake bail bonds. He also represented ORASCO in court without proper authorization, relying solely on a third party’s claim of agency.
What are a notary public’s responsibilities?	A notary public must safeguard their official seal and ensure it is only accessible to authorized individuals. They are responsible for verifying the identities of individuals signing documents and ensuring the authenticity of the notarized documents.
What is unauthorized representation?	Unauthorized representation occurs when a lawyer acts on behalf of a client without proper authorization. Lawyers have a duty to verify their authority to represent a client before taking any action on their behalf.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Fandiño guilty of negligence and breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
What does the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice say about official seals?	The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that every notary public must have an official seal, kept safe and accessible only to the notary public or their duly authorized representative. This is to prevent misuse and unauthorized notarization.
Why is verifying client representation so important?	Verifying client representation is essential to ensure that the lawyer is acting in the best interests of the client and has the legal authority to do so. Failure to verify can lead to legal complications and potential harm to the client.
What is the significance of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan case?	The Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan case emphasizes that individuals dealing with an agent must ascertain the extent of the agent’s authority. This principle was applied to Atty. Fandiño’s situation, highlighting his duty to verify Vargas’s authority to represent ORASCO.

This case illustrates the high standards of conduct expected of legal professionals, particularly in their roles as notaries public and representatives of clients. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of diligence, integrity, and adherence to the rules governing legal practice. The consequences of negligence and misrepresentation can be severe, impacting not only the lawyer’s career but also the interests of the public they serve.

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: ELIZABETH RECIO VS. ATTY. JOSELITO I. FANDIÑO, A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016