EN BANC

[A.C. No. 10373. May 31, 2016.]

FLORA C. MARIANO , petitioner, vs. ATTY. ANSELMO ECHANEZ ,

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before us is a Complaint Af davit for Disbarment dated August 25, 2008 1 led
by Flora C. Mariano (Mariano) against respondent Atty. Anselmo Echanez (Atty.
Echanez), for violation of the Notarial Law by performing notarial acts on documents
without a notarial commission.
In support of her complaint, Mariano attached several documents to show proof
that Atty. Echanez has indeed performed notarial acts without a notarial commission,
to wit: (1) Complaint dated June 18, 2007; 2 (2) Joint-Af davit of Gina Pimentel and
Marilyn Cayaban dated May 8, 2008; 3 (3) Af davit of Ginalyn Ancheta dated May 8,
2008; 4 and (4) Joint-Af davit dated May 8, 2008. 5 Also attached to the complaint is a
document containing the list of those who were issued notarial commissions for the
year 2006-2007 signed by Executive Judge Efren Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court of
Santiago City where Atty. Echanez's name was not included as duly appointed notary
public. 6
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
ordered Atty. Echanez to submit his answer to the complaint against him. 7
Atty. Echanez moved for extension to le his Answer but nevertheless failed to
submit his Answer. Thus, the IBP-CBD, deemed Atty. Echanez to be in default. 8
On July 24, 2009, during the mandatory conference, only Mariano appeared. The
IBP-CBD directed the parties to submit their position papers but again only Mariano
submitted her verified position paper.
In her position paper, Mariano maintained that Atty. Echanez is unauthorized to
perform notarial services. To support her allegation, Mariano submitted the Certi cate
of Lack of Authority for a Notarial Act issued by Executive Judge Anastacio D. Anghad
showing that Atty. Echanez has not been commissioned as a notary public for and
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, Santiago City 9 at the time of the unauthorized
notarization on May 8, 2008. 10 Mariano likewise attached a Certi cation issued by
Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian, RTC, Santiago City enumerating those lawyers who
have been commissioned as notary public within and for the territorial jurisdiction of
the RTC of Santiago City for the term of 2007-2008, which does not include Atty.
Echanez's name. 11
On May 14, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
issued a Resolution No. XIX-2011-273 remanding the case to the investigating
commissioner to refer the documents to the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Isabela who issued Atty. Echanez's notarial commission for proper verification. 12
In its Report and Recommendation, 13 the IBP-CBD found Atty. Echanez liable for
malpractice for notarizing documents without a notarial commission. The IBP-CBD
further noted that Atty. Echanez ignored the processes of the Commission by failing to
le an answer on the complaint, thus, it recommended that Atty. Echanez be suspended
from the practice of law for two (2) years and that he be permanently barred from
being commissioned as notary public.
In a Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-850 dated June 22, 2013, 14 the IBP-
Board of Governors adopted and approved in toto the Report and Recommendation of
the IBP-CBD.
No motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party.
RULING
We concur with the findings and the recommended penalty of the IBP-CBD.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only
those who are quali ed or authorized may act as notaries public. It must be
emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. 15 CAIHTE

In the instant case, it is undisputable that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts
on several documents without a valid notarial commission. 16 The fact of his lack of
notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarizations was likewise
suf ciently established by the certi cations issued by the Executive Judges in the
territory where Atty. Echanez performed the unauthorized notarial acts. 17
Atty. Echanez, for misrepresenting in the said documents that he was a notary
public for and in Cordon, Isabela, when it is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he
was not, he further committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to
the lawyer's oath. This transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." 18
In a number of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for
notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired
commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray , 19 a lawyer was suspended by the Court for
three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. In Zoreta v.
Simpliciano, 20 the respondent was likewise suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a
notary public for notarizing several documents after the expiration of his commission.
In the more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana , 21 the Court suspended a lawyer
for six (6) months and was disquali ed from being commissioned as notary public for
a period of two (2) years because he notarized documents outside the area of his
commission, and with an expired commission. 22
Likewise, Atty. Echanez' conduct in the course of proceedings before the IBP is
also a matter of concern. Atty. Echanez, despite notices, did not even attempt to
present any defense on the complaint against him. He did not even attend the
mandatory conference set by the IBP. He ignored the IBP's directive to le his answer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 and position paper which resulted in the years of delay in the resolution of this case.
Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and violates the lawyers oath which imposes upon every member of the
Bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice.
In Ngayan v. Tugade , 23 we ruled that [a lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint
against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his outing
resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of
office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Echanez's failure to attend the mandatory conference and to submit his
Answer and Position paper without any valid explanation is enough reason to make him
administratively liable since he is duty-bound to comply with all the lawful directives of
the IBP, not only because he is a member thereof but more so because IBP is the Court-
designated investigator of this case. 24 As an of cer of the Court, Atty. Echanez is
expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order
which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders
of the IBP. 25
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
Of ce of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Of ce of the
Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
SO ORDERED . DETACa

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes, Leonen and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Leonardo-de Castro * and Perlas-Bernabe, * JJ., are on official business.
Jardeleza, ** J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* On official business.
** On official leave.

1. Rollo, pp. 2-3.

3. Id. at 14-15.
4. Id. at 17-18.

5. Id. at 19-20.
6. Id. at 6.
7. Id. at 21.

8. Id. at 22-23.
9. Includes the Municipalities of Cordon, Ramon and San Isidro.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 10. Rollo, p. 62.
11. Id. at 67.

12. Id. at 68.

14. Id. at 71.

18. Almazan v. Felipe, A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 230.
19. 366 Phil. 155, 161 (1999).

20. 485 Phil. 395 (2004).

22. A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 — RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE.
23. 271 Phil. 654 (1991).

24. Vecino v. Ortiz, 579 Phil. 14, 17 (2008).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com