The Supreme Court declared Atty. Paisal A. Padate guilty of violating Canon VI, Section 33(p) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court also revoked his notarial commission, if existing, and disqualified him as a notary public for two years.
The Case
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) charged Atty. Padate with alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
According to the COMELEC, Amer-Ali B. Mangandog filed a certificate of candidacy for municipal councilor in the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections. Under election laws, Mangandog was required to file a Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) within 30 days from election day. COMELEC records purportedly showed that Mangandog failed to comply with this requirement, so on August 7, 2014, the Campaign Finance unit, now the CFO, issued a notice to explain.
In a sworn letter dated October 27, 2014, Mangandog claimed he had seasonably filed his SOCE. The letter was subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Padate. Mangandog attached copies of his SOCE, Schedule of Expenditures, and Summary Report of Expenditures, which bore notarizations by Atty. Padate on different dates. The jurats of the SOCE and the Schedule of Expenditures indicated they were notarized on June 6, 2010, while the Summary Report of Expenditures bore a jurat dated June 1, 2014.
Upon verification, the COMELEC discovered that the SOCE and Schedule of Expenditures were prepared using forms released and made available only in 2013. It would have been impossible for Atty. Padate to have notarized them on June 6, 2010, suggesting the notarization dates were deliberately antedated. The COMELEC also noted that Atty. Padate notarized Mangandog's sworn letter-explanation dated November 20, 2014.
Atty. Padate denied the accusations. He said that as a former provincial election supervisor he had extensive knowledge of election laws and would not risk his profession for a minimal notarial fee. He categorically denied notarizing Mangandog's sworn letter-explanation or the attached documents, and suggested that unknown individuals may have reproduced his notarial seal, forged his signature, and used his notarial credentials without his knowledge or consent.
The Issue
Whether Atty. Padate should be held administratively liable for the notarization of the antedated documents and the sworn explanation founded on them, and what penalty should be imposed.
The Ruling
The Court held that it is difficult to believe that respondent had no knowledge of the falsity of the assertions contained in the subject documents, considering that he himself prepared, issued, or otherwise caused the issuance of the questioned documents reflecting the challenged dates and entries. The surrounding circumstances negated any claim of good faith and rendered his denial of participation implausible.
In its disposition, the Court declared: Atty. Paisal A. Padate is declared GUILTY of violating Canon VI, Section 33(p) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE YEAR. He is also meted the penalty of REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if existing, and DISQUALIFICATION as notary public for a period of TWO YEARS. He is STERNLY WARNED that future infractions shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court also directed Atty. Padate to immediately file a Manifestation indicating his date of receipt of the Decision to determine the reckoning point of his suspension.
By the Numbers
- May 10, 2010 — National and Local Elections in which Mangandog ran for municipal councilor
- 30 days — the period from election day to file the SOCE
- August 7, 2014 — notice to explain issued to Mangandog
- October 27, 2014 — Mangandog's sworn letter claiming compliance
- June 6, 2010 — jurat date on the SOCE and Schedule of Expenditures
- June 1, 2014 — jurat date on the Summary Report of Expenditures
- 2013 — year the forms used for the SOCE and Schedule of Expenditures were released
- November 20, 2014 — Mangandog's sworn letter-explanation
- March 22, 2023 — IBP investigating commissioner's Report and Recommendation
- One year suspension; two years disqualification as notary public
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that Canon VI, Section 38 of the CPRA gives it discretion to appreciate mitigating and aggravating circumstances in fixing the sanction. It found that respondent's unjustified failure to file the required position paper despite due notice, with no explanation offered, reflected disregard of the disciplinary processes and constituted an aggravating circumstance under Canon VI, Section 38(b)(7). It also observed that the case was respondent's first offense, a mitigating circumstance under Canon VI, Section 38(a)(1).
With both an aggravating and a mitigating circumstance present, the Court applied the third paragraph of Canon VI, Section 39, which authorizes offsetting. The noncompliance with the IBP's directive was offset by the absence of prior administrative liability, leaving no basis to increase or reduce the penalty otherwise imposable.
The Court emphasized that while a notary public is not a guarantor of the truth of the contents of an instrument acknowledged before him, this limitation presupposes the regular and faithful performance of notarial duties. It does not protect a notary who himself participates in, facilitates, or enables the use of falsified documents, as such conduct violates the standards of honesty, integrity, and propriety required under the CPRA.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline investigating commissioner had earlier recommended a two-year suspension, immediate revocation of the notarial commission, and two-year disqualification.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, A.C. No. 11037.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.