CASE DIGEST : CELIA D. MENDOZA VS. ATTY. CESAR R. SANTIAGO, JR A.C. No. 13548. June 14, 2023 GAERLAN

FACTS : Complainant, claiming to be one of the heirs of the registered owner of the subject property, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent after he notarized an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver and Transfer of Rights and two Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the same portion of the property but reflecting different purchase prices—₱3,130,000.00 in the first deed and ₱1,500,000.00 in the second. Complainant alleged that the notarization of these inconsistent deeds violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Respondent argued that complainant had no legal personality to file the complaint, that ownership of the property had already been settled, and that the differing purchase prices were immaterial since he had already performed his duties as notary public. However, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that complainant had sufficient legal personality and ruled that respondent's notarization of the conflicting deeds appeared intended to reduce tax liabilities, constituting a violation of the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law and revocation of his notarial commission for two years.

On review, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings but increased the penalty, recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that his notarial commission be immediately revoked, and that he be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

ISSUE : WON the IBP Board of Governors correct

HELD : The Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. It emphasized that respondent admitted notarizing two Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the same property but stating different purchase prices. The evidence showed that while the buyer acknowledged paying ₱3,130,000.00 under the first deed, the second deed reflecting only ₱1,500,000.00 was the one submitted to the Register of Deeds and became the basis for computing taxes. The Court agreed that respondent's notarization of the conflicting deeds was intended to reduce his client's tax liability.

Citing Lopez v. Ramos, the Court reiterated that a lawyer who prepares and notarizes documents containing false considerations to evade taxes violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the lawyer's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a notary public, respondent should have refused to participate in an unlawful transaction rather than facilitate it. The Court stressed that notarization is imbued with public interest, as it converts private documents into public documents entitled to full faith and credit, requiring notaries to exercise utmost diligence and integrity.

The Court further noted that under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice constitute a serious offense warranting severe sanctions. Finding the IBP Board's recommendation appropriate and consistent with jurisprudence, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years, revoked his notarial commission effective immediately, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. He was likewise sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct would be dealt with more severely.