COQUIA v. LAFORTEZA

Flordeliza E. Coquia Vs. Atty. Emmanuel Laforteza

A.C. No. 9364

February 8, 2017

FACTS:

Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of the RTC, Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, having assumed office in November 17, 2004 until January 31, 2011.

On February 1, 2011, Atty. Laforteza transferred to the Department of Justice.

On February 6, 2012, this Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Laforteza, for Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents. C

Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC. Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred the complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, for appropriate action.

On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty. Laforteza to comment on the complaint against him. In compliance, Atty. Laforteza submitted his Comment where he denied the allegations in the complaint. Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending to his work, fellow court employee, Luzviminda Solis, wife of Clemente, with other persons, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda introduced said persons to him as the same parties to the subject documents.

Luzviminda requested him to subscribe the subject documents as proof of their transaction considering that they are blood relatives. Atty. Laforteza claimed that he hesitated at first and even directed them to seek the services of a notary public but they insisted for his assistance and accommodation. Thus, in response to the exigency of the situation and thinking in all good faith that it would also serve the parties' interest having arrived at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the subscription of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of subscription, after propounding some questions, he was actually convinced that the persons who came to him are the same parties to the said subject documents.

Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or connivance between him and the Solis. He pointed out that other than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of conspiracy, no evidence was presented to substantiate the same. Atty. Laforteza lamented that he was also a victim of the circumstances with his reliance to the representations made before him.

 
In a Joint-Affidavit of Clemente and Luzviminda, both denied to have connived or conspired with Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and execution of the subject documents. 

On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In its Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2013, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

However, in a Notice of Resolution, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to reverse and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned Atty. Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties as subscribing officer.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. Laforteza acted in abuse of his authority in committing an unauthorized notarial act.

Whether or not Atty. Laforteza violated is in violation of the notarial law of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

HELD:

We concur with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors, except as to the penalty.

In the instant case, we find that Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza had direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with the Solis' in the preparation of the subject documents. The Court does not thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.

Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to perform acts within the competency of regular notaries public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is now more of an exception rather than a general rule.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized and administered oaths in documents that had no relation to his official function. The subject documents are both private documents which are unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions. The civil case from where the subject documents originated is not even raffled in Branch 68 where Atty. Laforteza was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve as notary public ex officio and, thus, may notarize documents or administer oaths, he should not in his ex officio capacity take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to his official functions.

It is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. 

Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries public. However, this Court can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty. Laforteza for the purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions over erring court employees since the instant complaint against him was filed after he has ceased to be a court employee.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.