Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
JUDGE ADELBERT SANTILLAN VS. ATTY. NEPTHALI SOLILAPSI, A.C. NO. 12552 (DECEMBER 5, 2022): SUPREME COURT SUSPENDS LAWYER FOR NOTARIZING LEGAL DOCUMENTS DESPITE HAVING AN EXPIRED NOTARIAL COMMISSION
Sometime in March 2019, a certain Princess Ivory Cabaguas Villanueva requested for the issuance of a Certificate of Notarial Act indicating that Atty. Solilapsi recently notarized a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment. Because of the said request, Judge Adelbert Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi notarized the documents in March 2019 when his notarial commission expired in December 2018. Judge Santillan issued a Memorandum to Atty. Solilapsi directing him to explain and show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed upon him for notarizing legal documents despite having an expired notarial commission. In his Letter-Explanation, Atty. Solilapsi stated that the subject documents were notarized by his law office, but he only discovered their existence when his attention was called. Atty. Solilapsi alleged that the documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.
Judge Santillan rendered a Report and Recommendation dated January 6, 2020, and recommended that Atty. Solilapsi be disqualified from being commissioned as Notary Public from January 2020 to December 2021 for notarizing more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission. In its Resolution dated September 21, 2020, the Supreme Court resolved to treat the Report and Recommendation of Judge Santillan as an administrative complaint and required Atty. Solilapsi to file a comment within ten (10) days from notice. There being no comment, the Court decided the case on the merits.
In its Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the Supreme Court restated that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.” The Court held that without the requisite notarial commission, a lawyer is proscribed from performing any of the notarial acts allowed under the Notarial Rules. The Court did not believe on the excuse of Atty. Solilapsi being contrary to human experience:
“Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission. That his office staff notarized the subject documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission is not an acceptable excuse that would absolve him of any administrative liability in the case. After all, it is his bounden duty as a notary public to ensure that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. Thus, he cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by feigning ignorance of the acts of his office staff and passing the buck to them.
Besides, the Court finds incredible the allegation of Atty. Solilapsi that he had no knowledge of the notarial acts done by his office staff. To accept his explanation that he was unaware of the notarization of over 300 legal documents, performed in his name and in his law office, is unthinkable as it is contrary to natural human experience.”
The Court held that the act of Atty. Solilapsi violated Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7, which provide:
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes;
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; and
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
For his transgression, Atty. Solilapsi was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a Notary Public and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.