TL;DR

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Casan Macabanding from the practice of law for one year and revoked his notarial commission for two years for notarizing a false Affidavit of Withdrawal of Candidacy. The Court found that Atty. Macabanding failed in his duty as a notary public by notarizing a document containing a forged signature and without the affiant’s presence, thereby enabling the fraudulent withdrawal of a mayoral candidate’s name from the election. This case underscores the grave responsibility of lawyers as notaries public to ensure the integrity of documents and uphold the public trust in the legal profession. Notarizing documents without proper verification and due diligence can lead to serious disciplinary consequences for lawyers.

The Notary’s Oath Betrayed: When a Lawyer Certifies a Lie

This case revolves around a grave breach of duty by Atty. Casan Macabanding, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public. Domado Disomimba Sultan, a candidate for Mayor, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Macabanding for notarizing an Affidavit of Withdrawal of Candidacy that Sultan never signed nor authorized. The core legal question is whether Atty. Macabanding should be held administratively liable for notarizing this falsified document, thereby facilitating an attempt to manipulate an election. This incident throws light on the crucial role of notaries public, particularly lawyers, in upholding the integrity of legal documents and the severe consequences when this trust is violated.

The facts reveal that Sultan, running for mayor, discovered an Affidavit of Withdrawal of his candidacy submitted to the COMELEC, bearing his supposed signature and notarized by Atty. Macabanding. Sultan immediately denied executing the affidavit and filed complaints. An NBI handwriting expert concluded that the signature on the Affidavit of Withdrawal was indeed forged. Despite this evidence, Atty. Macabanding claimed Sultan had signed the document in his presence but later changed his story, admitting the notarization occurred without Sultan present. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Atty. Macabanding’s suspension, which the Supreme Court affirmed, albeit with a modified penalty.

The Supreme Court emphasized the crucial role of a notary public, especially when the notary is a lawyer. Referencing established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that lawyers who are notaries public bear a “graver responsibility” due to their oath to uphold the law and ethical standards. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to abstain from deceitful conduct and uphold the dignity of the legal profession. The Court quoted precedent, stating, “a notary public’s function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.”

The Court highlighted that in administrative cases against lawyers, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence. This means the complainant must present evidence that is more convincing than that of the respondent. In this case, the NBI report, which concluded the signature was forged, served as preponderant evidence. The Court dismissed Atty. Macabanding’s argument that the NBI expert lacked Arabic language expertise, clarifying that handwriting analysis focuses on strokes and pressure points, not linguistic understanding. Furthermore, the Court cited its earlier ruling in a related election case, Mariano v. COMELEC, which had already conclusively determined the affidavit of withdrawal to be forged, reinforcing the evidentiary weight against Atty. Macabanding.

Atty. Macabanding’s admission that he notarized the document without Sultan’s presence further cemented his administrative liability. The Court cited several analogous cases, such as Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana, Agbulos v. Viray, and Isenhardt v. Real, where lawyers were similarly penalized for notarizing documents without the affiants’ personal appearance. These cases established a consistent pattern of sanctions: suspension from legal practice, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The Court found Atty. Macabanding’s actions a clear dereliction of his duty as a notary public and a violation of the ethical standards expected of lawyers.

While the IBP recommended a six-month suspension from law practice, the Supreme Court deemed a harsher penalty appropriate, aligning the sanction with prevailing jurisprudence in similar cases. The Court ultimately suspended Atty. Macabanding from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This decision underscores the seriousness with which the Supreme Court views breaches of notarial duty, especially by lawyers, emphasizing the need for utmost care and fidelity in notarizing documents to maintain public trust in the legal system.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Sultan v. Macabanding, A.C. No. 7919, October 8, 2014