In Re Manigbas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Zacarias Manigbas, a notary public, was charged with falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge alleged that he made it appear in the jurat of certain documents (Exhs. D and E) that Pablo de la Cruz subscribed and swore to them before him in Lucena City, when in truth and in fact, they were signed in Manila and not in his presence. Procedural History: The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The respondent was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The Solicitor General conducted an investigation and made findings based on the evidence presented. The Petition: The proceedings were initiated to determine the culpability of the respondent notary public for alleged falsification.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Zacarias Manigbas is guilty of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the respondent's failure to exercise utmost care in the performance of his duties as a Notary Public warrants disbarment or suspension.
Ruling
The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Solicitor General. The respondent was exonerated of the charge of falsification but was warned to be more careful in the future in the performance of his duties as Notary Public. The Court further warned that any well-grounded complaint in the future against him upon similar grounds will merit a stiffer penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of falsification: The evidence did not show that the respondent was in league with bank officers who may have perpetrated a scheme in issuing fraudulent loans. His participation, which was limited to notarizing the documents, was not inconsistent with a lack of knowledge on his part of the fraud perpetrated by other parties. The Court noted that his being a young lawyer would disincline them to believe he consciously lent himself as a tool in perpetrating fraudulent loans. At least, the evidence failed to link the respondent to any fraudulent transactions the bank may have indulged in. On the failure to exercise utmost care: The respondent admitted that he had not exercised utmost care in ensuring that the person presenting the document for his signature as notary public was the same person who was supposed to sign and subscribe the document before him. He relied on the assumption that the papers were in order, as they were supposed to have been duly processed by the bank manager. The Solicitor General found that the respondent was chargeable only with failure to exercise utmost care in the performance of his functions as a Notary Public. This failure was deemed not serious enough to justify disbarment or suspension, drawing a parallel to the case of Tahimik Ramirez vs. Atty. Jaime Ner, where a similar act did not warrant disbarment or suspension. Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended that the respondent be exonerated from the charge of falsification but be warned to be more careful hereafter, with the understanding that future similar complaints would merit more drastic action.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who fails to exercise utmost care in ascertaining the identity of persons acknowledging documents before him may be warned, but exonerated from charges of falsification if there is no evidence of his complicity in the fraud.