In the recent case of Celia D. Mendoza VS. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. (A.C. No. 13548. June 14, 2023), a significant legal issue came to the fore as the lawyer in question acknowledged notarizing both the First and Second Deeds of Sale pertaining to the exact same property, yet with conflicting indicated amounts.
The purchaser of the subject property firmly asserted that she acquired the property for ₱3,130,000.00, as clearly indicated in the First Deed of Sale, which was duly acknowledged and notarized by the respondent attorney. However, a closer examination of the records reveals a glaring discrepancy. The Second Deed of Sale, also acknowledged and notarized by the same respondent lawyer, presented a significantly lower amount of ₱1,500,000.00. This lower amount served as the basis for the tax liability of the lawyer’s client. Evidently, this act of notarizing both deeds of sale was orchestrated to minimize the client’s tax obligation.
Drawing parallels with the case of Lopez v. Ramos, where analogous circumstances arose, the Court provided comprehensive insight into the illegality of notarizing two deeds of sale for the same property with the intention of reducing tax liability. It was established that such actions are clear violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, resulting in severe consequences. The penalty, as previously imposed, included suspension from the practice of law and the revocation of the notary public’s notarial commission.
The Court’s ruling emphasized that the lawyer, in notarizing the second deed with a reduced value, knowingly participated in an endeavor to evade the correct tax obligations, thus violating Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule underscores a lawyer’s duty to neither counsel nor support activities aimed at defying the law or eroding confidence in the legal system.
Furthermore, the Court’s stance clarified that notarization is not a perfunctory act but carries substantial public interest. It transforms a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without the need for further authentication. Consequently, notaries public bear the responsibility of meticulously complying with formalities to safeguard the integrity of the document and the acts it embodies.
Additionally, Rule IV, Section 4 (a) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits notaries public from engaging in notarial acts for transactions akin to the subject deeds of sale, emphasizing the prohibition of notarizing documents with unlawful purposes.
In conclusion, the lawyer’s actions, despite being aware of the illegal objective to evade proper taxes, in notarizing the second deed, were deemed unacceptable. As a member of the legal profession, the lawyer was expected to uphold the ethical standards and integrity of the legal field, resisting any act that could erode public trust in the profession. The Court’s decision served as a reminder that lawyers must adhere to the highest moral and ethical standards, as any misconduct or deficiency in character could lead to disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment.
