In re Bucana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar, Barangay Captain of Victories, Dumangas, Iloilo, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court concerning Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana. Procedural History: Respondent Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana notarized on November 10, 1975, an Agreement executed by spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon. The Agreement stipulated that "in case anyone of them will remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to remarry without objection or reservation." The Agreement was deemed contrary to law as it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose. Respondent admitted notarizing the document and acknowledged its immoral nature. He claimed the document was prepared by his clerk without his knowledge, that he initially refused to sign it upon discovery, and that he must have inadvertently notarized it while emotionally disturbed due to his father's illness, amidst numerous other documents on his table. His clerk and the complainant corroborated his contentions substantially. The Court found no question that the Agreement was contrary to law, morals, and good customs. It noted that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the contract in question, in substance, purports to allow a spouse to take a concubine or live in adulterous relations without opposition, thereby abetting bigamy. The Petition: The letter from Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar initiated the Supreme Court's review of Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana's actions. The Court required respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for notarizing an Agreement deemed contrary to law, morals, and public policy. The Court's resolution ultimately found respondent guilty of malpractice and suspended him from the office of notary public for six months, with a warning against future similar acts.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana is guilty of malpractice for notarizing an agreement that allows spouses to commit bigamy and live in adulterous relations.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held that respondent Rufillo D. Bucana was guilty of malpractice and suspended him from the office of notary public for a period of six (6) months, with a stern admonition against future repetitions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that there is no question the agreement in question is contrary to law, morals, and good customs, as it essentially encourages the commission of crimes such as bigamy, concubinage, and adultery. Relying on the principle in Ramirez v. Gmur, the Court emphasized that marriage is an 'inviolable social institution' and the foundation of civilization, which the public has a deep interest in maintaining in its purity. The Court rejected the respondent's plea for clemency based on negligence, stating that the document could not have been notarized had the respondent exercised the requisite care required by law. Citing Panganiban v. Borromeo, the Court held that a notary public is an officer who must inform himself of the facts to which he intends to certify and avoid taking part in any illegal enterprise. Because the duties of a notary and a lawyer are commingled, the respondent is held responsible for the disgraceful nature of the act regardless of whether it was intentional or the result of gross negligence. Consequently, the claim that the document was prepared by a clerk and signed inadvertently does not exempt the respondent from disciplinary action, leading to his six-month suspension.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is required to exercise due care and regard for existing laws in the performance of his duties. Failure to do so, especially in notarizing documents with illicit or immoral purposes, constitutes malpractice for which he may be held accountable, even to the extent of suspension.