Lawyer suspended for serving as notary public in Isabela without authorization

MANILA, Philippines — A lawyer has been suspended by the Supreme Court from practicing law for two years after he was found to have done notary public work in Isabela province without proper authority.

Lawyer Anselmo Echanez was also disqualified last month by the high court from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

In a five-page decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, Echanez was found by the high court to be guilty of “engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission.”

“He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction,” the high court said.

The decision on Echanez came after the high tribunal acted on the Dec. 11, 2008 resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, which recommended the suspension of the lawyer from practicing law practice for one year.

The IBP was acting in turn on a complaint filed against Echanez by Efigeia Tenoso, who alleged the lawyer was engaged in the practice of notary public in Cordon, Isabela, without being properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela.

This act was in violation of Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires a lawyer who wants to set up practice as a notary public to secure a “notarial commission” from an executive judge.

Echanez denied the allegation but among the evidence submitted to the court was a document showing he was not one of the commissioned notaries public of of Santiago City, and 10 documents he had apparently notarized in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The lawyer did not present evidence to rebut the allegations.

“Accordingly, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent repeatedly notarized documents without the requisite notarial commission,” the high court said.

“In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments,” it said, adding that the respondent’s conduct “falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers.”

The high court also said that it was “proper that he be sanctioned.”