Ramirez v. Ner
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tahimik Ramirez filed a disbarment proceeding against respondent Atty. Jaime S. Ner. The charge stemmed from respondent's act of notarizing a deed of sale for a motor vehicle. The acknowledgment clause falsely stated that both the vendor, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr., and the vendee, Eduardo I. Reyes, personally appeared before respondent. In reality, only Abaya appeared; Reyes, the alleged vendee, did not. Respondent notarized the deed based on Abaya's promise to bring Reyes the next day to complete the transaction. However, Abaya later informed respondent that the car was stolen by Reyes and his companions, along with the notarized deed and other documents. Respondent annotated his notarial register as "stolen" and "cancelled." Procedural History: On the strength of the stolen deed of sale and certificate of registration, Reyes obtained a new certificate of registration in his name. Reyes subsequently sold the car to petitioner Ramirez, who claimed to have bought it in good faith, relying on the apparent authenticity of the deed notarized by respondent. A criminal information for qualified theft was filed against Reyes and Ramirez. Reyes was found guilty, while Ramirez was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. It was during the criminal trial that respondent admitted notarizing the deed despite the vendee's non-appearance. The Petition: The disbarment proceeding was initiated against respondent for alleged violation of his oath as a lawyer and notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Jaime S. Ner's act of notarizing a deed of sale in the absence of one of the parties constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Notarial Law sufficient to warrant disbarment or suspension.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reprimanded and admonished respondent Atty. Jaime S. Ner to be more careful hereafter, upon pain of being dealt with more severely by the Court. The Court found that respondent's act of notarizing an incomplete deed of sale, which falsely certified the personal appearance and acknowledgment of the vendee, afforded an unscrupulous third party the opportunity to consummate an illegal purpose and undermined public confidence in the integrity of conveyancing. However, the Court deemed the offense not serious enough to warrant disbarment or suspension, considering it as a lack of caution rather than culpable malpractice or immorality, and acknowledging respondent's honesty in admitting the irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that while disbarment was too severe a penalty, the respondent's act was clearly irregular and deserving of sanction. It is immaterial whether the respondent considered the instrument 'incomplete' at the time of signing because the document, on its face, carried the weight of a validly notarized instrument once the signature and seal were affixed. By certifying that the vendee had personally appeared before him, the respondent made a false statement that enabled a third party to give an appearance of legality to a criminal act. The Court stressed that notarial documents are entitled to full faith and credit, and notaries must observe utmost care to maintain public confidence in the integrity of conveyancing. The respondent's action, while perhaps motivated by friendship rather than malice, demonstrated a significant lack of caution that facilitated the commission of fraud. However, considering the respondent's honesty in admitting the irregularity during the criminal trial, the Court determined that a reprimand would suffice to impress upon him the heavy responsibility of his office.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who notarizes an incomplete instrument, certifying falsely that parties personally appeared and acknowledged the same, commits an act that undermines public confidence in the integrity of conveyancing, even if the instrument was not fully completed, and warrants disciplinary action.