THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9504. June 5, 2013.]
NANCY M. NASAYAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. GIL S. UNAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 5, 2013, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9504 — Nancy M. Nasayao v. Atty. Gil S. Unay. On June 21, 2012, Nancy M. Nasayao (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit against Atty. Gil S. Unay (Atty. Unay) alleging that Atty. Unay was a notary public in Butuan City who notarized several documents executed by Isidro Iligan (Iligan); that Iligan did not personally appear before him because he was detained in Surigao City; that she and her husband, Prosecutor Raul O. Nasayao (Pros. Nasayao), were among the respondents in a case filed by Iligan before the Office of the Ombudsman; that Iligan's complaint with the attachments was notarized by Atty. Unay, making it appear that, at the time of the notarization, Iligan personally appeared before him; and that, in truth and in fact, Iligan was then detained in Surigao City. 1
In his Comment, 2 Atty. Unay averred that Iligan was charged with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City (RTC); that the charge was eventually downgraded to Grave Coercion; that during the investigation of the said case, Iligan was deliberately mauled and was illegally detained for three (3) months; that since Iligan could not get a lawyer from Surigao City who would represent him in court, his family went to Butuan City and asked him to represent Iligan; that as a result of the arbitrary detention and injuries sustained by Iligan during the investigation of the case, he filed a case for misconduct, abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a public official against Pros. Nasayao and Coast Guards, Constancio Nasayao and Col. Antonio Cuasito, before the Office of the Ombudsman; that he indeed notarized Iligan's affidavit-complaint; that before he did so, he visited and interviewed Iligan in prison several times; and that, thereafter, he brought the documents in jail and explained their contents to Iligan before he affixed his signatures; and, that he notarized the documents outside his territorial jurisdiction because the lawyers in Surigao City refused to get involved in the case for fear of reprisal from Pros. Nasayao, a prosecutor of the province of Surigao. Atty. Unay begged the indulgence of the Court and stressed that he notarized the documents in good faith upon the request of the client without personal gain. HSDIaC
The Court finds merit in the complaint.
Generally, a notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. 3 However, a notary public may perform a notarial act outside his place of work or business in any of the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction, to wit:
1. public offices, convention halls and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;
2. public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;
3. hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and
4. any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention. 4
In the case of Judge Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana, 5 the latter's commission as a notary public was revoked and he was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months because (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.
In the more recent case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzalez, 6 Atty. Gonzales was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public for notarizing a deed of absolute sale outside his territorial jurisdiction and without requiring the personal presence of the parties to the deed of sale.
Indeed, Atty. Unay violated the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the complaint-affidavit outside his territorial jurisdiction. Considering, however, that no lawyer in Surigao City was willing to notarize the complaint-affidavit; that this is his first infraction; and that he candidly admitted the deed, even begging the indulgence of the Court, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) month sufficient.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gil S. Unay is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month effective immediately, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this decision to enable this Court to determine the start of his suspension. TAIESD
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies be sent to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 98-107.
3.Rule III, Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
4.Section 2 (a), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
5.A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, 591 SCRA 204.
6.A.C. No. 6634, 530 SCRA 748.