SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12817. March 9, 2022.]
EDGARDO ARELLANO-SINGSON, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO C. CORDEÑO, *respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 March 2022 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12817 (Edgardo Arellano-Singson v. Atty. Edgardo C. Cordeño). — This is a review 1 of Resolution No. XXI-2015-341 2 issued by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD Case No. 12-3349, which recommended the suspension of respondent Atty. Edgardo C. Cordeño (Atty. Cordeño) from the practice of law for three (3) months, disqualification from being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years, and revocation of notarial commission, if existing, for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Rules on Notarial Practice).
The Factual Antecedents:
In a complaint 3 dated September 22, 2011 filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), complainant Edgardo Arellano-Singson (Edgardo) charged Atty. Cordeño with violation of Rule XI, Section 1, par. (b) (7) and Rule IV, Section 3, par. (c) of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Edgardo alleged that he and her mother, Rufina Arellano-Singson (Rufina), live on a portion of a parcel of land identified as Lot 331, located in Brgy. Sto. Niño, Isabel, Leyte, and owned by Bienvenido Arellano (Bienvenido). 4
Edgardo narrated that on June 26, 2010, Rufina attended a birthday party where she was made to sign a document she did not understand, as she was uneducated. 5 A year after, or sometime in June 2011, Edgardo and Rufina were surprised to receive a summons 6 for an unlawful detainer case filed against them by the spouses Marcelino Sumalinog and Lilibeth Rojas Sumalinog, and the spouses Dale Ryan Tan Garcia and Zandra Grace Jamora-Garcia, before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Merida-Isabel. 7
Attached in the summons is a copy of the complaint 8 and its annexes. One of the complaint's annexes is a document denominated as "Extrajudicial Settlement/Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land." 9 Upon inspection, Edgardo discovered that this document, notarized by Atty. Cordeño, was similar to the document signed by Rufina during the birthday party. 10 Thus, it dawned on Edgardo that the document was notarized by Atty. Cordeño without requiring the presence of Rufina. 11 Edgardo likewise discovered that the wife of Atty. Cordeño, Marylin A. Cordeño (Marylin), was one of the principal parties in the document. 12
Report and Recommendation of
In a Report and Recommendation 13 dated December 12, 2014, Commissioner Michael G. Fabunan (Commissioner Fabunan) found that Atty. Cordeño violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. CAIHTE
Commissioner Fabunan held that while there was no proof that Rufina was absent during the notarization of the document, it is undisputed that Atty. Cordeño's wife is the attorney-in-fact of one of the parties in the document. Moreover, the parties in the instrument are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Thus, based on these facts, Commissioner Fabunan concluded that Atty. Cordeño indeed violated the disqualification rule under the Rules on Notarial Practice. 14
The dispositive portion of the Report and Recommendation reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Edgardo C. Cordeno (sic) be SUSPENDED from his notarial practice for three (3) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 15
Report and Recommendation of
In its Resolution 16 dated April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors approved with modification the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Fabunan. The Resolution partly reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", considering Respondent's violation of Section 3(c) of Rule IV and Sections 1(b), 7, 10, and 11 of Rule XI of the 2004 Rule on Notarial Practice. Hence, Atty. Edgardo C. Cordeno's (sic) notarial commission if presently commissioned is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.17
In its Resolution 18 dated September 28, 2017, the Board of Governors denied Atty. Cordeño's motion for reconsideration. 19
Issue
The sole issue for the resolution of the Court is whether Atty. Cordeño should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.
Our Ruling
The Court affirms with modification the IBP Board of Governors' report and recommendation.
It is settled that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act, but rather an act invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. 20
In the present case, Atty. Cordeño is being accused of violating two (2) provisions of the Notarial Practice Rules, which shall be discussed separately.
On the alleged failure to require
Edgardo alleges that Atty. Cordeño notarized the subject document without the presence of one of the principals, her mother Rufina. In support of his allegation, Edgardo claims that Rufina denies having appeared before Atty. Cordeño and would never give her consent to the sale of her shares or interests over the lot involved in the subject document. 21
The Court cannot accept Edgardo's contention on this point.
Aside from his statements, Edgardo failed to present any proof to support his claim that Rufina was not present during the notarial act. It is a basic rule that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation is not evidence. 22 In view of Edgardo's failure to support his contention, we cannot thus conclude that Rufina was not present at the time of the notarial act. Consequently, we cannot find Atty. Cordeño to have violated Rule XI, Section 1, par. b (7) of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
On the alleged violation of the
Edgardo asserts that Marylin, the wife of Atty. Cordeño, was among the principal parties in the subject document. Thus, Edgardo concludes that Atty. Cordeño violated the disqualification rule in the Rules on Notarial Practice. 23
On the other hand, while he does not deny that Marylin was one of the parties in the subject document, Atty. Cordeño defends his actions by saying that Marylin was not a principal party but merely an attorney-in-fact. Atty. Cordeño argues that "an attorney-in-fact is not a principal by definition of law, but merely an agent whose powers are defined by the instrument granting such authority and the provisions of the Civil Code on Agency." 24 Further, according to him, "a principal is one who has direct interest on the subject matter while an agency [sic] is merely an alter ego of the principal. x x x" 25 Thus, he concludes that without the principal, there is no attorney-in-fact. 26
Moreover, Atty. Cordeño advances the position that while he may have technically violated the rule, it is the spirit and intent behind it which must prevail. Atty. Cordeño argues that "the work of the notary public is merely to put an imprimatur that there was no fraud, nor illegal or immoral arrangements " 27 and that the "acts of the signatories were voluntary [sic] entered into with full knowledge of the consequences of the act." 28 Thus, Atty. Cordeño submits that this purpose was fulfilled in the present case, considering that he was "in sure footing that there would be no illegal or immoral arrangements as the signatories are known to him and that there would be no fraud x x x." 29 He concludes that his violation, with the attendant circumstances, "precludes his being meted a penalty." 30
We cannot accept Atty. Cordeño's arguments.
Rule IV, Section 3 of the Notarial Practice Rules states: DETACa
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. — A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration except as provided by these Rules and by law; or
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. (emphasis supplied).
The rule is simple and straightforward. A notary public cannot perform a notarial act if one of the principals is their spouse. While we recognize some merit in Atty. Cordeño's argument regarding the intent behind the rules, we must likewise recognize the fact that the above-cited rule does not mention any exception nor accept any justification. Thus, it must be applied as it is written.
Neither can the Court accept Atty. Cordeño's argument that his spouse is technically not a principal, but merely an attorney-in-fact. Rule II, Section 10 of the Rules on Notarial Practice states:
SEC. 10. Principal. — "Principal" refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization.
In the present case, it is Marylin who personally appeared before the notary public who happens to be her husband, Atty. Cordeño. Likewise, it is Marylin's act which is the subject of notarization, being properly authorized to represent someone else. Thus, we hold that Marylin is a principal in so far as the Rules on Notarial Practice are concerned. In view of this, Atty. Cordeño's act of notarizing the subject document, despite his wife being one of the principals, constitutes a violation of the above-cited provision.
With Atty. Cordeño's liability established, we now come to the proper penalty to be imposed. In Sanchez v. Inton, 31 the Court held:
As to the proper penalty to be imposed on respondent, prevailing jurisprudence instructs that an erring lawyer who violates the Notarial Rules must be meted with the following penalties: (a) suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year; (b) immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and (c) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. x x x
Despite these recommended penalties, the Court recognizes the extremely negative impact the current COVID-19 pandemic has brought upon everyone's livelihood. And while indeed the practice of law is a profession and not a business, 32 We just cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring fact that the practice of law and notarial practice are the main — if not the only — sources of income for many of our compañeros. Thus, out of compassion, the Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty to be imposed on Atty. Cordeño.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Edgardo C. Cordeño GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months; PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of six (6) months; and REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The suspension from the practice of law, the prohibition from being commissioned as notary public, and the revocation of his notarial commission, if any, shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by Atty. Cordeño. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Cordeño's personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official business; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2872 dated March 4, 2022.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as Cordeno in some parts of the records.
1. Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 12. Grievance procedures. — x x x but no action involving the suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court;
and Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules of court which provides:
Section 8. Investigation. — x x x Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
2.Rollo, pp. 167-168.
3.Id. at 2-6.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id. at 34.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 35-42.
9.Id. at 8-11.
10.Id. at 4.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 4-5.
13.Id. at 146-149.
14.Id. at 148-149.
15.Id. at 149.
16.Id. at 167-168.
17.Id. at 145.
18.Id. at 165-166.
19.Id. at 150-159.
20.Roa-Buenafe v. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019.
21.Rollo, p. 4.
22.Yon Mitori International Industries v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 225538, October 14, 2020, citing Dela Cruz v. Octaviano, 814 Phil. 891, 905 (2017).
23.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
24.Id. at 113.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 114.
28.Id.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31. A.C. No. 12455, November 5, 2019.
32.Burbe v. Magulta, 432 Phil. 840, 843 (2002).