EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 8051, April 07, 2009 ]

EDERLINDA K MANZANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SANTIAGO C.

SORIANO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:
The law profession is not a trade or a business venture.[1] The practice of law
and membership in the bar for that matter is a high personal privilege
burdened with conditions[2] and is limited to citizens who show and continue
to show the qualifications and character traits required by law for the
conferment of such privilege.[3] In accordance, therefore, with its
constitutional mandate to regulate the legal profession and its authority to
discipline its erring members, it behooves the Court to keep an ever watchful
eye on, among others, unscrupulous lawyers with a penchant for hoodwinking,
at every turn, their trusting clients; and, in general, on those whose
misconduct tends to blemish the purity of the legal profession. And if need be,
the Court shall remove from the ranks those unable to adhere to the rigid
standards of morality and integrity required by the ethics of the legal
profession. So it must be in this disciplinary proceeding.

The records of the case disclose the following:

In a verified complaint for disbarment dated March 23, 2006, with enclosures,
filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), complainant Ederlinda
K. Manzano charged respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano with dishonesty
(misappropriation) and misrepresentation and/or usurping the authority of a
notary public. The case was docketed as Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
Case No. 06-1702.

According to complainant, she engaged respondent's services to commence

and pursue collection cases from individuals dealing with her construction
supply/hardware business. As part of the agreement, respondent was allowed
the free use of an office space in the Manzano Complex building in Nabua,
Camarines Sur. After a time, complainant noticed that not a single successful
collection was ever made, albeit respondent kept on asking for money to cover
incidental expenses. Later on, complainant discovered that respondent had
succeeded in convincing one of her debtors, Abelino G. Barela, to sell to him,
for PhP 65,000, a piece of land and the house standing on it. The condition of
the sale was that, out of the proceeds, respondent should deliver PhP 50,000
personally to complainant to Hilly cover Barela's indebtedness. As
complainant would later claim, the PhP 50,000 was never turned over to her.

In the light of this unsettling development, complainant severed her client-

attorney relationship with respondent and evicted him from his office-space at
the Manzano Complex. She, together with Barela, later charged "respondent
with estafa.

Complainant also allegedly discovered further that respondent had for a time
been acting as a notary public for and in the province of Camarines Sur
without the necessary notarial commission.

In his answer,[4] respondent merely entered a general denial of the inculpatory

allegations in the complaint, focusing his sights more on the dismissal of the
estafa case that complainant and Barela had earlier filed against him. He
alleged that the filing of the instant administrative case was complainant's way
of getting back at him for his having charged her and her husband and son
with grave coercion.

In the mandatory conference/hearing scheduled on July 6, 2006 and later

reset to August 10, 2006, respondent, despite due notice, failed to appear,
although he would later submit, albeit belatedly, a conference brief. And
despite being accorded, with a warning, several extensions within which to file
a position paper, no such paper came from respondent, prompting the IBP
CBD to declare him as having waived his right to participate in the
proceedings.

In his Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 2008, Investigating

Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. found respondent guilty of grave
misconduct (misappropriating the funds belonging to his client) and
malpractice, and recommended his disbarment.

On May 22, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-
2008-237, approving Commissioner Magpayo's report and recommendation
with modification insofar as the recommended penalty was concerned, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules, and for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, continued violation of the Rule on Notarial Practice, and for
failure to comply with his duties as a member of the Bar in good standing by
his failure to pay his membership dues since year 2003 up to the present, Atty.
Santiago C. Soriano is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the
practice of law.

The findings of the CBD, as approved by the IBP Board of Governors, on the
guilt of respondent, first, for misappropriating his client's money he held in
trust and his attempt to hide his fraudulent act, are well supported by the
evidence on record and, therefore, commend themselves for concurrence. As
aptly observed by the CBD, respondent perverted his position, as
complainant's lawyer, and his legal expertise by convincing debtor Barela to
sell and transfer to him the tetter's house for PhP 65,000 with the
understanding that respondent would remit the PhP 50,000 to complainant to
offset Barela's debt. Instead of remitting the PhP 50,000 to complainant,
respondent, however, misappropriated this amount for his benefit without so
much as informing complainant. In net effect, respondent duped both
complainant and Barela. And in a vain bid to cover up his grave misdeed,
respondent, via a deed of sale dated August 27, 1996 (Exhibit "F"), made it
appear that he acquired the aforesaid property from Barela's mother, Eusebia,
for PhP 10,000. On its face, however, the deed had respondent as house/lot
buyer and, at the same time, as the notarizing officer, although he was without
an appointment as notary public at that time.

As a result of his dishonest but crude maneuvers, respondent was charged by

both complainant and Barela with estafa, which, contrary to what he wanted
to impress on the CBD in his answer, eventually led to the filing of an amended
information (Exhibit "B") for that crime with the Regional Trial Court, Branch
37 in Iriga City.[6]

Respondent's acts immediately adverted to are reflective of his gross and

wanton disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, more specifically
its Canon 16, which provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and
property collected or received for or from the client."

Time and again, the Court has reminded lawyers that, as an officer of the
court, theirs is the duty to obey, respect, and uphold the law and legal
processes by not engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct.[7] An immoral or deceitful conduct necessarily involves moral
turpitude.[8] Needless to stress, the commission of any of these unlawful acts,
which amounts too to a violation of the attorney's oath, is a ground for
suspension or disbarment of lawyers.[9]

Definitely not lost on the Court with respect to this case is the IBP's
documented report about the respondent having been once the subject of an
administrative complaint in CBD Case No. 05-1514 lodged by Andrea Balce
Celaje, in which the Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for
misapplying the money of his client.[10]
The Court agrees too with the other inculpatory finding of malpractice on the
part of respondent consisting of exercising the powers of a notary public
without having the appropriate commission. The evidence on record shows
that the respondent held himself up and acted as notary public for the province
of Camarines Sur for Calendar Years 1996, 2005, 2006, and 2007, as
evidenced by several documents he notarized for the period, although he was
without the proper commission during those times.[11] Among these documents
listed in the Commission's report and borne out by the records are: (1) Exhibit
"H," Affidavit of Loss of Madelina Ayuman; (2) Exhibit "H-1," Affidavit of
Heirship for Insurance Benefit; (3) Exhibit "I," Joint Affidavit of Grace
Pastoral and Daisy Lomame; (4) Exhibit "I-1," Affidavit of Supplemental
Information of Diwane Julianes-Sarmiento; and (5) Exhibit "I-2," Affidavit of
Guardianship of Consuelo Alina.

The act of notarizing without the necessary commission is not merely a simple
enterprise to be trivialized. So much so that one who stamps a notarial seal
and signs a document as a notary public without being so authorized may be
haled to court not only for malpractice but also for falsification. Zoreta v.
Simpliciano elucidated on the importance of notarization and the Court's
inclination to whack with a heavy disciplinary stick those who would dare
circumvent the Notarial Law:

xxx [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested

with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be
prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts and the administrative
offices in general. It must be underscored that the 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. For
this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties.

The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not
be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's
act of notarizing documents without the commission therefore as
"reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the
crime of falsification of public documents." xxx

xxx [Performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the

lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically the Notarial Law. Then, too,
by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all
intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's
oath similarly proscribes.[12] x x x

In a four-year stretch, perhaps even longer, respondent, without commission,

presented himself falsely as a notary public. But the worst uncovered cut of all
occurred in 1996, when respondent authenticated a purported conveying deed,
one he doubtless prepared, in which he himself was the transferee of the lot.
Respondent, by his conduct, created an impression of dishonesty, fraud, or
deceit, not only in his dealings with a client but also with the
public,[13] obviously oblivious to the fact that among an attorney's duties is to
aid in the administration of justice.[14] We, thus, see respondent as an attorney
who, both in appearance and action, was deceitful.

A lawyer, by taking the lawyer's oath, becomes a guardian of the law and an
indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. As such, he
is expected to have a mega-dose of social conscience with the end in view of
making a meaningful difference and with a little less of self-interest.

Indeed, the moral standards of the legal profession expect lawyers to act with
the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of
their practice of law. Respondent has not paid heed to this lofty ideal. His guilt
for the acts complained of which constitute dishonesty, grave misconduct
and/or serious malpractice, not to mention his delinquency in the payment of
his annual IBP dues since the year 2003, is indisputable. But the Court has
not detected the slightest indication of remorse on his part. In what we in fact
perceive to be a display of hubris, respondent hardly felt it necessary to defend
himself in the disbarment proceedings before the IBP. The Court shall,
therefore, impose the fitting sanction called for under the premises.

As between the penalty recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and

that of the Investigating Commissioner, we find that of the latter to be more
appropriate. We take this course of action, fully aware that only in a clear case
of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as
officer of the court and as a member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a
penalty.[15] Judging from his past actions, respondent has become a liability to
the legal profession. His act of notarizing a sham deed of sale where he is
named as a vendor is reprehensible. He cannot be trusted any longer with the
sacred duty and responsibility to protect the interest of any prospective client
and pursue the ends of justice. His continued practice of law will likely subvert
justice, bring further dishonor to the bar, and lessen the respect and the trust
reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal society.[16]

WHEREFORE, the premises of this case considered, respondent Atty.

Santiago C. Soriano is DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let his name
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it
duly recorded in the personal file of respondent.

SO ORDERED,

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,

Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro,
and Peralta, JJ., concur.
Chico-Nazario and Brion, JJ., on leave.

People v. Daban, No. L-31429, January 31, 1972, 43 SCRA 185,

[1]

186; Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579 (1944).

Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100643, December

[2]

12, 1995, 251 SCRA 201, 205; citing Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
79690-707 & 80578, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 132.

Bongalonta v. Castillo, CBD Case No. 176, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA 310,
[3]

313.

[4] Rollo, pp. 19-20.

[5] Id. at 134.

[6] Id. at 5. Crim. Case No. Ir-7550.

[7] CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.01.

[8] In reBasa, 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920).

[9] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 27.

Rollo, p. 141. See Exhibit "L," CBD Order Submitting the Case for
[10]

Decision, rollo, p. 82.

Id. at 17. Per Certification of the Office of the Clerk of Court of Camarines
[11]

Sur (Annex "J") that respondent was a commissioned notary public in the
years 1997 and 1998.
[12] A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1, 9-11; citations omitted.

[13] Bray v. Squires (Tex App Houston [Is' DistJ), 702 SW2d 266.

Chapman v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., (CA9 Cal) 613 F2d 193, 63 ALR Fed
[14]

869; Langen v. Borkowski, 188 Wis 277, 206 NW 181, 43 ALR 622.

Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) v. Montemayor, A.C. No.

[15]

5739, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 1, 9; Bellosillo v. Board of Governors of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G R. No. 126980, March 31, 2006, 486
SCRA 152, 164.

[16] Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I), supra at 10.