FACTS:

Elsa Mondejar filed two complaints against Atty. Vivian Rubia before the Office of the Court Administrator, seeking Rubia's disbarment and the cancellation of her notarial commission. The complaints were based on Mondejar's allegations that Rubia committed deceitful acts and malpractice, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaints arose from two incidents: one involving a criminal charge filed by Mondejar against Marilyn Carido and Nakayama for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law, and another involving a Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land. Mondejar contested the authenticity of a document acknowledged by Rubia, as well as alleged that the Deed of Sale was falsified. Rubia denied the allegations and filed her comment and counter-affidavit.

The administrative complaints were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. During the proceedings, Mondejar passed away but her husband requested that the cases continue based on the submitted documentary evidence. The investigating commissioner found Rubia to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for falsification in the document related to the criminal charge. However, the commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint regarding the Deed of Sale. The recommended sanction was a one-month suspension.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors modified the recommended sanction and instead issued a warning to Rubia. Rubia filed a motion for reconsideration, which the board denied. As a result, Rubia elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the complainant's husband had the standing to pursue the cases against the respondent lawyer.

2. Whether or not the notarization of the documents by the respondent lawyer was valid.

3. Whether the document was forged and ante-dated.

4. Whether the respondent's explanation regarding the conflicting dates in the document is credible.

5. Whether corrections on the document could be subsequently made.

RULING:

1. The respondent lawyer can be subject to disciplinary proceedings even without a complainant because disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are initiated by the court motu proprio. The purpose of discipline proceedings is to preserve the purity of the legal profession and ensure the proper administration of justice. Thus, the complainant's husband had the standing to pursue the cases against the respondent lawyer.

2. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public have a solemn duty to obey the laws, guard against illegal or immoral arrangements, and fulfill their other duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the notarization of the documents by the respondent lawyer is valid.

3. Yes, the document was forged and ante-dated.

4. No, the respondent's explanation regarding the conflicting dates in the document is not credible.

5. No, corrections on the document could not be subsequently made.

PRINCIPLES:

• Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and can be initiated by the court motu proprio. The purpose is to preserve the purity of the legal profession and ensure the proper administration of justice.

• Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public have solemn duties and responsibilities.

• Violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Revocation of notarial commission for the failure to send copies of notarized documents to the proper clerk of court or Executive Judge.