FACTS:

In this administrative case, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe (respondent) is charged with malpractice as a notary public. Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant) alleged that despite not being registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina, respondent notarized a document entitled "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva." To support his claim, complainant attached a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, stating that respondent was not a commissioned notary public for Marikina City during the relevant period. Respondent, in his defense, admitted to notarizing the document but denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at the time. He attached a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City, stating that he was appointed as a notary public for the City of Pasig and other municipalities for the years 1998-1999. Respondent also filed an administrative complaint against complainant. Complainant argued that he had the legitimate right to file the administrative complaint against respondent and pointed out that the subject document was incompletely dated and yet notarized by respondent. The case was eventually referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer's oath. The recommendation was for respondent to be suspended for two years from the practice of law, but the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to one year of suspension, immediate revocation of notarial commission if applicable, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. On reconsideration, the penalty was further modified to a reprimand with warning and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. The issue before the court is whether respondent should be held administratively liable.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

1. The court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner that respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer's oath. The court adopts the modified penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors, which includes a reprimand with warning, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of the Notarial Law and lawyer's oath can result in administrative liability.

• A notary public should not notarize documents outside the territorial limits of their jurisdiction.

• Lawyers are mandated to obey the laws and do no falsehood.