G.R. No. A.C. No. 6882; December 24, 2008
MARISA BACATAN WILLIAMS and ORLANDO VERAR RIAN, JR., complainants, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO ICAO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Marisa Bacatan Williams and Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. administratively charged Atty. Rodrigo Icao for violating the Notarial Law and for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. They alleged that on May 23, 2002, respondent notarized a “Declaration of Heirship and Partition” making it appear that three signatories—Lucia Briones, Ramon Verar, and Martin Umbac—signed it in his presence when they did not. Evidence included trial testimony from one signatory, Francisco B. Ventolero, stating he carried the document from one signer to another to obtain signatures. The document indicated signing on January 14, 2002, in Bacong, while the acknowledgment stated signing on May 23, 2002, in Dumaguete City. Lucia Briones’s community tax certificate was not recorded, her signatures appeared inconsistent, and she was known to be in Cotabato, sick, at the time. Signatories also inconsistently used family names (e.g., “Ventolero” vs. “Briones”). Complainants additionally charged respondent with conspiring with Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez in falsifying the document.
In his Comment, respondent admitted the document was not signed in his presence but claimed the parties appeared before him later, where he ascertained their identities, explained the document’s contents, and they acknowledged their signatures. He argued the complaint had prescribed under IBP rules. He attached a Joint Affidavit from three signatories supporting his claim.
The case was referred to the IBP. Commissioner Edmund T. Espina found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law, recommending a reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was forwarded to the Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rodrigo Icao is administratively liable for violating the Notarial Law and for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court granted the petition, suspending Atty. Rodrigo Icao from the practice of law and from his commission as a notary public for one year.
1. Prescription: The defense of prescription is unavailing. Disbarment proceedings do not prescribe, as established in Frias v. Bautista-Lozada and Heck v. Santos. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the IBP Rules of Procedure providing a prescriptive period is void for being ultra vires.
2. Violation of Notarial Law: Respondent committed multiple violations:
– He notarized the document without recording the residence certificate number of Lucia Briones, violating the mandatory requirement under the then-effective Notarial Law (Section 249, Revised Administrative Code).
– He admitted the signatories did not personally sign in his presence, failing in his duty to demand signing before him as a notary public.
– The document contained false statements: it listed Atty. Enriquez as an heir (he was merely legal counsel), falsely stated Aurea Briones Ventolero died ab intestato during WWII (her death certificate showed she died in 1998), and inaccurately identified heirs. Respondent failed to inform himself of these facts, neglecting his duty to avoid certifying false statements.
3. Notarization as a Public Interest: Notarization is not a routinary act; it invests documents with public confidence. Notaries must observe requirements with utmost care to preserve document integrity.
4. Charge of Falsification Conspiracy: This charge failed due to lack of concrete evidence.
The Court emphasized that notaries public must uphold the integrity of notarized documents. Respondent’s actions undermined this trust. He was suspended for one year from law practice and notarial commission, with a warning for future offenses.