LAQUINDANUM Vs QUINTANA (ETHICS)

LAQUINDANUM vs.
QUINTANA
A.C. No. 7036
June 29, 2009
Digested by: URMENETA
FACTS:
 Complainant Judge Lydia Laquindanum (Judge of RTC Midsayap, Cotabato) sent a letter
to the Court requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on respondent Atty.
Nestor Quintana for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.
 Complainant directed respondent to stop notarizing various documents within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) as he had extended his
notarial functions beyond the limits of his authority.
 Despite this, respondent still continued to perform notarial functions in Midsayap,
Cotabato. Upon further investigation, it was found out that was Atty. Quintana’s wife
who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office.
 Respondent countered this claim by saying that while he filed a petition for notarial
commission to the complainant, it was not immediately acted upon and that he instead
secured said commission from a different judge in Cotabato City. Respondent further
claims that complainant was singling him out and that he did not violate any provision of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because he was equipped with a notarial
commission. He maintained that he did not act outside the province of Cotabato since
Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices his legal profession and subscribes documents,
is part of the province of Cotabato.
 As for the issue that his wife was signing notarized documents on his behalf, respondent
denied that he authorized his wife to notarize documents. According to him, he slapped
his wife and told her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession.
 It was also found that respondent’s notarial commission had already expired on
December 31, 2005 and he had not renewed the same, but despite this, respondent still
continued on notarizing documents.
ISSUE:
WON Respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents beyond
the limits of his authority (YES)
RULING:
The Court ruled that:
There is no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code
of Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (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.
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly.
Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of
malpractice of law and falsification Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it
also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes.
Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not
to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the
documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by
passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
DISPOSITION:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still existing, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt
with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to
enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.1avvphi1

LAQUINDANUM Vs QUINTANA (ETHICS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAQUINDANUM Vs QUINTANA (ETHICS)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAQUINDANUM Vs QUINTANA (ETHICS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAQUINDANUM vs.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.