02 Phil. 419; 106 OG No.

9, 1163 (March 1, 2010)

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.

[1]
People v. Daban, No. L-31429, January 31, 1972, 43 SCRA 185, 186; Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74
Phil. 579 (1944).
[2]
Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100643, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 201, 205; citing
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 & 80578, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 132.
[3]
Bongalonta v. Castillo, CBD Case No. 176, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA 310, 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.
[10]
Rollo, p. 141. See Exhibit "L," CBD Order Submitting the Case for Decision, rollo, p. 82.
[11]
Id. at 17. Per Certification of the Office of the Clerk of Court of Camarines 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.
[14]
Chapman v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., (CA9 Cal) 613 F2d 193, 63 ALR Fed 869; Langen v. Borkowski, 188 Wis 277,
206 NW 181, 43 ALR 622.
[15]
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) v. Montemayor, A.C. No. 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.