National Bureau of Investigation v. Morada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against Minerva L. Morada, a notary public and an employee of P. V. Agana & Associates, a road construction company. The first count alleged that on August 2, 1957, Morada authenticated an affidavit of Pedro V. Agana, who was not personally present before her, being in Bacolod City at the time. The second count alleged that Morada filled in blanks in the said affidavit, which requested the release of 15,300 bags of cement for the Pototan-Dingle Road Project, despite knowing that the affiant had already received 5,000 bags from the said allocation. Procedural History: Respondent Morada admitted authenticating the affidavit in the absence of the affiant but claimed a prior understanding that the affiant had signed it. The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The investigators found that P. V. Agana & Associates had a contract to receive 15,300 bags of cement for the project. Due to reports of cement diversion, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications required affidavits from contractors stating the cement would be used exclusively for the project. The affidavit in question was discovered during an investigation into such anomalies. The Petition: The NBI filed a complaint against Morada for alleged malpractice as a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's act of authenticating an affidavit in the absence of the affiant constitutes gross misconduct warranting disbarment under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to admonish respondent Minerva L. Morada to be more careful in the performance of her duties as a notary public and as a member of the Bar, with a warning that repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more drastically. The Court agreed with the conclusion and recommendation of the Solicitor General.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while the respondent's act of administering an oath in the absence of the affiant is highly censurable, it did not reach the threshold of gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court noted that the evidence established that Morada acted without malice, as she was acting upon the prior instructions of her employer and the subsequent suggestion of a government employee to facilitate the project's documentation. The Court emphasized that a notary public’s duty is to ensure the personal appearance of the affiant to maintain the solemnity and reliability of notarized documents. However, following the precedent in Viuda de Veloso v. Madarang (61 Phil. 773), the Court found that where the notary's misdeed lacks fraudulent intent or serious damage, a lighter penalty is appropriate. Since the affiant admitted to signing the documents and sending them to the respondent for ratification, the breach was considered a failure of procedural care rather than a moral or professional depravity. Thus, considering she was a relatively new member of the Bar, the Court opted for admonition rather than the more severe penalty of disbarment.
Main Doctrine
While the authentication of an affidavit in the absence of the affiant is a censurable act for a notary public, it does not necessarily constitute gross misconduct warranting disbarment, especially if done without malice and with a belief of prior understanding. However, such practice is admonished.