Tenoso vs. echanez, A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013

 EFIGENIA M. TENOSO vs. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ

A.C. No. 8384               April 11, 2013

Facts:

Complainant tiled a complaint against respondent alleging that respondent was engaged in practice as a notary public in Cordon, lsabela, without having been properly commissioned by the RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela.

This alleged act violates Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. To support her allegations, complainant attached the following documents to her pleadings:
a.    Two documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago City Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian bearing the names of commissioned notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. Respondent's name does not appear on either list;
b.    Copies of ten documents that appear to have been notarized by respondent in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008; and
c.    A copy of a certification issued by Judge Cacatian stating that a joint-affidavit notarized by respondent in 2008 could not be "authenticated as to respondent's seal and signature as NO Notarial Commission was issued upon him at the time of the document's notarization."

Issue:
            Whether or not the acts of respondent warrants his suspension in the practice of law


Ruling:

The duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. "Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution."

In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. As noted by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondent's conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. It is proper that he be sanctioned.


Penalty: suspension for a period of 2 years and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public or two years. 


You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law


0 comments:

Post a Comment

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blogger templates

About