DE MILLER vs.

MIRANDA

FACTS:

An ejectment case was filed against a certain Clarita Magbuhos (Magbuhos). A certain Manansala
appeared in her behalf, who claimed to be her attorney-in-fact, together with her lawyer Atty. Rolando
Miranda (herein Respondent). To prove her authority, she presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
duly notarized by respondent (this serves as the original SPA). However, upon scrutiny it was found out
that Manansala’s authority is that of “cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais” and not of the ejectment
case. Thereafter, Manansala, thru respondent, submitted another SPA (altered SPA), almost identical to
the original with the following changes:

a. the phrase was enclosed with a handwritten parenthesis; and

b. the handwritten phrase “my property located at Prk. 6 Aguinaldo St. Sapang Bato Angeles
City” was inserted.

With all handwritten iterations not having any initial or counter-signature of Magbuhos.

MTCC held that the document cannot be given effect without any counter-signature of
Magbuhos. Further, the IBP held that it was improper, wrongful, and/or unlawful for respondent to have
notarized a copy thereof with the handwritten alterations.

ISSUE: WON respondent is liable for the acts complained of.

HELD:

Yes, respondent is liable.

Notary public is empowered to perform a variety of Notarial acts, such as the acknowledgement
and affirmation of documents or instruments. A notarial public must be mindful of the significance of the
notarial seal affixed on documents. It exercises duties calling of carefulness and faithfulness. It is
important that a notary public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized
document would be undermined.

In this case, the respondent prepared the original SPA to show that Manansala was authorized by
Magbuhos to appear in the latter’s behalf in the ejectment case, but the authority indicated in the SPA
only pertains to “cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais” and not to the ejectment case.

Worse, respondent himself caused the intercalation of the notarized SPA by inserting handwritten
alterations therein which change its meaning, thus violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 which states that “(a) a
lawyer shall not engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct”.
 It does not only caused damaged to those directly affected but also tainted the integrity of the
legal profession by degrading the function of notarization.