A.C. No. 7184.  September 17, 2014.

*
 
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY.
MARCELO B. SUERTE-­FELIPE, respondent.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyer’s Oath; For misrepresenting

in the said acknowledgment that he was a notary public for and in
the City of Marikina, when it is apparent and, in fact,
uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further committed a
form of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer’s
oath.—As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed,
respondent, who himself admitted that he was commissioned as
notary public only in the City of Pasig and the Municipalities of
Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-
1999, could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment
in the City of Marikina, as said notarial act is beyond the
jurisdiction of the commissioning court, i.e., the RTC of Pasig. The
territorial limitation of a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal
clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice: Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term.—A person commissioned
as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning court is made, unless either
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and
the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied) Said principle is equally
echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume
I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended, of
which Section 240, Article II states: Sec. 240. Territorial
jurisdiction.—The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province
shall be coextensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a
notary public in the City of Manila shall be coextensive with said
city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial
act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a
notary public for and in the City of Marikina, when it is apparent
and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further
committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to
the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly, said trans-

*  FIRST DIVISION.

231

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014. 231

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

gression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which provides that “[a] lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.
Malpractice.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE,   J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent Atty.
Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe (respondent) for malpractice as a
notary public, among others.
The Facts
In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe
B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant) charged respondent,
previously of the Public Attorney’s Office,2 for malpractice
and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter,
despite not having been registered as a notary public for the
City of Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of the
document entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. de Nieva”3 dated “25th day
of 1999” (subject document), stating that he is a “notary
public for and in the City of Marikina.”4 Said document was
one of the attachments to the Amended Complaint5 dated
August 14, 2003 filed in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK entitled
“Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz [(as represented by
respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada [(as repre-

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 1-4.

2  Id., at p. 50.
3  Id., at pp. 23-24.
4  Id., at p. 24.
5  Id., at pp. 13-18.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

sented by complainant)].” To prove his claim,

complainant attached a Certification6 dated May 26, 2005
issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, certifying that per the
court’s record, respondent is not a commissioned notary
public for the City of Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the
date of issuance.
 
In a Resolution7 dated July 5, 2006, the Court required
respondent to file his Comment8 which he eventually
submitted on February 13, 2007 after proper service. In
said pleading, respondent admitted that he indeed
notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document but
denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at
that time.9 To prove his defense, he attached a
Certification10 dated August 23, 2006 issued by the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying
the fact of his appointment as notary public for the City of
Pasig and in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San
Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999 under
Appointment No. 98.11 Further, respondent, thru the
comment, incorporated his own administrative complaint
against complainant for malpractice and harassment of a
fellow lawyer in view of the filing of the instant
administrative case against him.12
In response, complainant filed a Reply13 dated April 26,
2007 asserting that he has the legitimate right to file the
administrative complaint against respondent for his
unlawful act of notarization, which is not an act of
harassment as respondent claims. He also draws attention
to the fact that the sub-

_______________

6   Id., at p. 32.
7   Id., at p. 33.
8   Id., at pp. 50-52.
9   Id., at p. 50.
10  Id., at pp. 48 and 53.
11  Id., at pp. 51 and 53.
12  Id., at p. 51.
13  Id., at pp. 63-67.

233

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014. 233

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

ject document was incompletely dated and yet notarized by

respondent.14
In a Resolution15 dated July 11, 2007, the Court, inter
alia, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. Eventually, both parties appeared during
the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008.16
 
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated September 22,
2008, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found
respondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law and the
lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the
acknowledgment of the subject document in Marikina City
as it was outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. To
this end, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that
in the acknowledgment of the subject document, it was
categorically stated that respondent is a notary public for
and in the City of Marikina, Province of Rizal, of which he
was not, hence, violating the Notarial Law. Moreover,
respondent likewise violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically
its mandate for lawyers, to obey the laws and do no
falsehood.18
In view of the foregoing, it was thus recommended that
respondent be suspended for a period of two (2) years from
the practice of law. However, since it does not appear that
he was still commissioned as a notary public, the
Investigating Commissioner did not recommend that he be
disqualified as such.19

_______________

14  Id., at p. 65.
15  Id., at p. 73.
16  Id., at p. 102.
17   Id., at pp. 102-106. Signed by Commissioner Rebecca Villa­nueva-
Maala.
 18  Id., at p. 105.
19  Id., at p. 106.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

In a Resolution20 dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board

of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension to one
(1) year, with immediate revocation of notarial commission
if presently commissioned, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
On reconsideration,21 the IBP Board of Governors, in a
Resolution22 dated March 8, 2014, modified the penalty
stated in its previous resolution, imposing, instead, the
penalty of reprimand with warning, and disqualification
from being commissioned as a notary public for the
decreased period of one (1) year.
 
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not
respondent should be held administratively liable.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as
to the penalty.
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed,
respondent, who himself admitted that he was
commissioned as notary public only in the City of Pasig and
the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and
Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999, could not notarize
the subject document’s acknowledgment in the City of
Marikina, as said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of
the commissioning court, i.e., the

_______________

20   See Notice of Resolution signed by National Secretary Tomas N.

Prado; id., at p. 101.
21  See Motion for Reconsideration dated January 28, 2009; id., at pp.
107-110.
22   See Notice of Resolution signed by National Secretary Nasser A.
Marohomsalic; id., at p. 120.

235

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014. 235

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary public’s

jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:23

Sec.  11.  Jurisdiction and Term.—A person commissioned as

notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning court is made, unless either
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and
the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)

Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law

found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917, as amended,24 of which
Section 240, Article II states:

Sec.  240.  Territorial jurisdiction.—The jurisdiction of a

notary public in a province shall be coextensive with the
province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of
Manila shall be coextensive with said city. No notary shall
possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits
of his jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)

For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he

was a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, when it
is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not,
respondent further committed a form of falsehood which is
undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly,
said transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
“[a] lawyer shall

_______________

23  A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated July 6, 2004.

24  See Peña v. Paterno, A.C. No. 4191, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 1, 14.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.”
In the case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales,25 citing
Nunga v. Atty. Viray,26 the Court instructively expounded
on infractions similar to that of respondent:

While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident,

respondent’s act of notarizing documents in a place
outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial
commission, partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight
dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court said in
Nunga v. Viray is very much apropos:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of
the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary
action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws,
more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it
appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is,
for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes.
These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from it. Notarization is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
who are qualified or authorized may

_______________

25  557 Phil. 496; 530 SCRA 748 (2007).

26  366 Phil. 155, 161; 306 SCRA 487, 491-492 (1999).

237

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014. 237

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the issuance of

a commission as notary public are treated with a formality
definitely more than casual.27 (Emphases supplied)

With respondent’s liability herein established, and

considering further the attendant circumstances of this
case, take for instance, that he is a first time offender and
that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings,28 the
Court finds that suspension for a period of six (6) months29
from the practice of law would suffice as a penalty. In
addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of one (1) year and, his notarial
commission, if currently existing, is hereby revoked.30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-
Felipe is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public,
and violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. He is likewise
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of one (1) year and his notarial
commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal
record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to
circulate

_______________

27  Supra note 25 at p. 504; pp. 755-756.

28  Rollo, p. 110.
29  See Agagon v. Atty. Bustamante, 565 Phil. 581, 586-588; 541 SCRA
286, 291 (2007).
30  Id.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

them to all the courts in the country for their information

and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
 Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe suspended from practice of
law for six (6) months for malpractice as notary public and
violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, with stern warning
against repetition of similar acts. He is likewise disqualified
from being commissioned as notary public for one (1) year
and his notarial commission, if existing, is revoked.

Notes.—Aside from violating the Notarial Law,

respondent also violated his Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility by committing falsehood in the
pleadings he submitted before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). (Agadan vs. Kilaan, 709 SCRA 1 [2013])
A lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially imbued
with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former
to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful
compliance. (Segovia-Ribaya vs. Lawsin, 709 SCRA 287
[2013])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.