RELEVANCY AND COMPETENCY Besides, there had been a prior mortgage contract over accepted respondent’s explanations with

accepted respondent’s explanations with respect to the

the same property in which complainant was represented lease agreement, sale contract, and the three SPAs
as the property’s absolute owner, but she did not pertaining to Limpioso. However, he found that the
EN BANC A.C. No. 6470 July 8, 2014 complain. Moreover, the cause of the perjury charge inaccurate crafting of the real estate mortgage contract
against complainant was not the representation ofherself was a sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for
MERCEDITA DE JESUS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. as owner of the mortgaged property, but her guarantee violation of Canon 187 and Rule 18.038 of the Code of
JUVY MELL SANCHEZMALIT, Respondent. that it was free from all liens and encumbrances. The Professional Responsibility. Thus, he also recommended
perjury charge was even dismissed, because the that she besuspended from the practice of law for six
RESOLUTION prosecutor found that complainant and her spouse had, months.9
indeed, paid the debt secured with the previous
SERENO, CJ: mortgage contract over the same market stall. The IBP Board of Governors, inits Resolution No.
XVIII-2008-245 dated 22 May 2008, unanimously
Before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by With respect to the lease agreement, respondent adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation
Mercedita De Jesus (De Jesus) against respondent Atty. countered that the document attached to the of the Investigating Commissioner, with the modification
Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit (Sanchez-Malit) on the followingAffidavit-Complaint was actually new. She gave the that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
grounds: grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, court’s copy of the agreement to complainant to for one year.10
and unworthiness to become an officer of the Court. accommodate the latter’s request for an extra copy.
Thus, respondent prepared and notarized a new one, Respondent filed her first Motion for Reconsideration11
THE FACTS OF THE CASE relying on complainant’s assurance that the lessees and Second Motion for Reconsideration.12 She
would sign it and that it would be returned in lieu of the maintained that the additional documents submitted by
In the Affidavit-Complaint1 filed by complainant before original copy for the court. Complainant, however, complainant were inadmissible, as they were obtained
the Office of the Bar Confidant on 23 June 2004, she reneged on her promise. without observing the procedural requisites under
alleged that on 1 March 2002, respondent had drafted Section 4, Rule VI of Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules
and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market As regards the purchase agreement of a property on Notarial Practice).13 Moreover, the Urgent Ex
stall that falsely named the former as its absolute and covered by a CLOA, respondent claimed that ParteMotion of complainant was actually a supplemental
registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee sued complainant was an experienced realty broker and, pleading, which was prohibited under the rules of
complainant for perjury and for collection of sum of therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of that procedure of the Committee on Bar Discipline; besides,
money. She claimed that respondent was a consultant of transaction. Actually, when the purchase agreement was she was not the proper party to question those
the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and notarized, complainant did not present the CLOA, and so documents.
was therefore aware that the market stall was the agreement mentioned nothing about it.
government-owned. Prior thereto, respondent had also Hence, the investigating commissioner should have
notarized two contracts that caused complainant legal Rather, the agreement expressly stated that the property expunged the documents from the records, instead of
and financial problems. was the subject of a case pending before the giving them due course. Respondent also prayed that
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board mitigating circumstances be considered, specifically the
One contract was a lease agreement notarized by (DARAB); complainant was thus notified of the status of following: absence of prior disciplinary record; absence
respondent sometime in September 1999 without the the subject property. Finally, respondent maintained that of dishonest or selfish motive; personal and emotional
signature of the lessees. However, complainant only the SPAs submitted by complainant as additional problems; timely goodfaith effort to make restitution or to
found out that the agreement had not been signed by the evidence wereproperly notarized. It can be easily rectify the consequences of her misconduct; full and free
lessees when she lost her copy and she asked for gleaned from the documents that the attorney-in-fact disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative
another copy from respondent. The other contract was a personally appeared before respondent; hence,the attitude toward the proceedings; character or reputation;
sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate notarization was limited to the former’s participation in remorse; and remoteness of prior offenses.
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which complainant the execution ofthe document. Moreover, the
entered into with a certain Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 acknowledgment clearly stated that the document must The IBP Board of Governors, inits Resolution No.
February 1998. Respondent drafted and notarized said be notarized in the principal’s place of residence. XX-2012-119 dated 10 March 2012, deniedrespondent’s
agreement, but did not advise complainant that the motion for reconsideration for lack of substantial reason
property was still covered by the period within which it An exchange of pleadings ensuedafter respondent to justify a reversal of the IBP’s findings.14
could not be alienated. submitted her Comment. After her rejoinder, complainant
filed an Urgent Ex-ParteMotion for Submission of Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, Director
In addition to the documents attached to her complaint, Additional Evidence.5 Attached thereto were copies of for Bar Discipline Pura Angelica Y. Santiago – through a
complainant subsequently submitted three Special documents notarized by respondent, including the letter addressed to then acting Chief Justice Antonio T.
Powers of Attorney (SPAs) notarized by respondent and following: (1) an Extra Judicial Deed of Partition which Carpio – transmitted the documents pertaining to the
an Affidavit of Irene Tolentino (Tolentino), complainant’s referred to the SPAs naming Limpioso as disbarment Complaint against respondent.15
secretary/treasurer. The SPAs were not signed by the attorney-in-fact; (2) five SPAs that lacked the signatures
principals named therein and bore only the signature of of either the principal or the attorney-in-fact; (3) two THE COURT’S RULING
the named attorneyin-fact, Florina B. Limpioso deeds of sale with incomplete signatures of the parties
(Limpioso). Tolentino’s Affidavit corroborated thereto; (4) an unsigned Sworn Statement; (5) a lease After carefully reviewing the merits of the complaint
complainant’s allegations against respondent.2 contract that lacked the signature of the lessor; (6) five against respondent and the parties’ submissions in this
unsigned Affidavits; (7) an unsigned insurance claim case, the Court hereby modifies the findings of the IBP.
On 4 August 2004, the Second Division of the Supreme form (Annual Declaration by the Heirs); (8) an unsigned
Court issued a Resolution requiring respondent to submit Invitation Letter toa potential investor in Japan; (9) an Before going into the substance of the charges against
her comment on the Complaint within ten (10) days from unsigned Bank Certification; and (10)an unsigned respondent, the Court shall first dispose of some
receipt of notice.3 Consent to Adoption. procedural matters raised by respondent.

In her Comment,4 respondent explained thatthe After the mandatory conference and hearing, the parties Respondent argues that the additional documents
mortgage contract was prepared in the presence of submitted their respective Position Papers.6 Notably, submitted in evidence by complainant are inadmissible
complainant and that the latter had read it before affixing respondent’s Position Paper did not tackle the additionalfor having been obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule
her signature. However, complainant urgently needed documents attached to complainant’s Urgent Ex VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A comparable
the loan proceeds so the contract was hastily done. It ParteMotion. argument was raised in Tolentino v. Mendoza,16 in which
was only copied from a similar file in respondent’s the respondent therein opposed the admission of the
computer, and the phrase "absolute and registered THE FINDINGS OF THE IBP birth certificates of his illegitimate children as evidence of
owner" was inadvertently left unedited. Still, it should not his grossly immoral conduct, because those documents
be a cause for disciplinary action, because complainant In his 15 February 2008 Report, IBP Investigating were obtained in violation Rule 24, Administrative Order
constructed the subject public market stall under a "Build Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. recommended the No. 1, Series of 1993.17 Rejecting his argument, the
Operate and Transfer" contract with the local immediate revocation of the Notarial Commission of Court reasoned as follows:
government unit and, technically, she could be respondent and her disqualification as notary public for
considered its owner. two years for her violation of her oath as such by Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
notarizing documents without the signatures of the provides that "evidence is admissible when it is relevant
parties who had purportedly appeared before her. He to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these
rules." There could be no dispute that the subject birth The important role a notary public performs cannot be and she is hereby PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
certificates are relevant to the issue. The only question, overemphasized. The Court has repeatedlystressed that being commissioned as a notary public.
therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act,
inadmissibility of said birth certificates allegedly for but one invested with substantive public interest. Let copies of this Resolution be entered into the personal
having been obtained in violation of Rule 24, Notarization converts a private document into a public records of respondent as a member of the bar and
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993. document, making it admissible in evidence without furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of document is, by law, entitled tofull faith and credit upon all courts of the country for their information and
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must guidance.
violating the ruleon confidentiality of birth records, but observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
nowhere does itstate that procurement of birth records in performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's No costs.
violation of said rule would render said records confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would
inadmissible in evidence. be undermined.20 SO ORDERED.

On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only Where the notary public admittedly has personal MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as knowledge of a false statement or information contained
a result of illegal searches and seizures. It should be in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix Chief Justice, Chairperson
emphasized, however, that said rule against the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to
unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to discipline the notary public accordingly as the
protect a person from interference by the government or circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the
the state. In People vs. Hipol, we explained that: The integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be
Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights undermined, and public confidence in notarial documents
does not concern itself with the relation between a diminished.21
private individual and another individual. It governs the
relationship between the individual and the State and its In this case, respondent fully knew that complainant was
agents. not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That
complainant comprehended the provisions of the real
The Bill of Rights only tempers governmental power and estate mortgage contractdoes not make respondent any
protects the individual against any aggression and less guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latter’s liability for
unwarranted interference by any department of tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly, respondent’s conduct
government and its agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be amounted to a breach of Canon 122 and Rules 1.0123 and
extended to the acts complained of in this case. The 1.0224 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
alleged "warrantless search" made by Roque, a
co-employee of appellant at the treasurer's office, can Respondent’s explanation about the unsigned lease
hardly fall within the ambit of the constitutional agreement executed by complainant sometime in
proscription on unwarranted searches and seizures. September 199925 is incredulous. If, indeed, her file copy
of the agreement bore the lessees’ signatures, she could
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as have given complainant a certified photocopy thereof. It
private individuals, obtained the subject birth records as even appears that said lease agreement is not a rarityin
evidence against respondent, the protection against respondent’s practice as a notary public. Records show
unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply. that on various occasions from 2002 to 2004, respondent
has notarized 22 documents that were either unsigned or
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of lacking signatures of the parties. Technically, each
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide document maybe a ground for disciplinary action, for it is
for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a document
26
inquestion, said public documents are, therefore, be signed in his or her presence.
admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case A notary public should not notarize a document unless
against respondent.18 the persons who signed it are the very same ones who
executed it and who personally appeared before the said
Similarly, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what
27
provision declaring the inadmissibility of documents are stated therein. Thus, in acknowledging that the
obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly parties personally came and appeared before her,
28
consideredin evidence the other notarized documents respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
submitted by complainant as additional evidence. Professional Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer that
she shall do no falsehood.29
Respondent’s argument that the Urgent Ex-ParteMotion
of complainant constitutes a supplemental pleading must Certainly, respondent is unfit to continue enjoying the
fail as well. As its very name denotes, a supplemental solemn office of a notary public. In several instances, the
pleading only serves to bolster or adds something to the Court did not hesitate to disbar lawyers who were found
primary pleading. Its usual office is to set up new facts to be utterly oblivious to the solemnity of their oath as
30
which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with notaries public. Even so, the rule is that disbarment is
respect to the same subject matter as the controversy meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
referred to in the original complaint.19 seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and the Court will not disbar a
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Urgent Ex-Parte lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish
31
Motion filed by complainant was a supplemental the desired end. The blatmt disregard by respondent of
pleading. One of her charges against respondent is that her basic duties as a notary public warrants the less
the latter notarizedincomplete documents, as shown by severe punishment of suspension from the practice of
the SPAs and lease agreement attached to the law and perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as
Affidavit-Complaint. Complainant is not legally barred a notary public.
from submitting additional evidence to strengthen the
basis of her complaint. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juvy Mell
Sanchez-Malit is found guilty of violating Canon 1 and
Going now into the substance of the charges against Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional
respondent, the Court finds that she committed Responsibility as well as her oath as notary public.
misconduct and grievously violated her oath as a notary Hence, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
public. ONE YEAR effective immediately. Her notarial
commission, if still existing, is IMMEDIATELY REVOKED