Soto v. Lacre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Benjamin J. Soto filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Ruben B. Lacre for notarizing a special power of attorney (SPA) on July 23, 1970. The SPA stated that Enrico A. Mendoza, one of the principals, was of legal age, but he was only eighteen years old, as indicated by his residence certificate. Filomena Ablaza, Enrico's aunt, and Enrico were co-owners of a land occupied by Benjamin Soto. Filomena and Enrico filed an ejectment suit against Benjamin Soto to recover possession of the land. The SPA was executed by Filomena and Enrico in favor of Jose T. Vicencio to represent them in the ejectment action. Procedural History: Benjamin Soto lost the ejectment case in the city court and the Court of First Instance. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the case was pending. A criminal case for falsification of public document was also filed by Benjamin Soto against Enrico Mendoza, Jose T. Vicencio, and the respondent lawyer, which was dismissed for failure to establish the elements of falsification. The Petition: The complaint for disbarment alleged that respondent Lacre, as a notary public, should have inquired into the actual age of Enrico Mendoza, as the SPA became the basis for the unlawful detainer complaint against Soto. Respondent claimed his duty as a notary was limited to establishing the identity of the parties and the voluntariness of their execution of the document.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Ruben B. Lacre, as a notary public, was negligent in notarizing a special power of attorney where one of the principals, Enrico Mendoza, was stated to be of legal age but was, in fact, only eighteen years old. Whether the respondent's duty as a notary public extended to verifying the veracity of the age stated in the document beyond the apparent physical appearance of the affiant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court exonerated respondent Ruben B. Lacre and dismissed the disbarment case. The Court found that the respondent acted under an honest mistake of fact and without malice, applying the maxim 'ignorantia facti excusat'.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's negligence in notarizing the SPA: The Court held that the respondent was not negligent. Public Act No. 2103, Section 1, defines an acknowledgment as a certification by a notary public that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. The primary duty of a notary is to ascertain the identity of the parties and the voluntariness of their execution. While capacity to act is incidentally ascertained, there was nothing to indicate to the respondent that Enrico Mendoza was a minor. By appearance, Enrico Mendoza was approximately 5'8" and weighed around 130 pounds, which convinced the respondent that he was of legal age. The respondent performed what a prudent man would do under the circumstances. The SPA was already prepared when brought to the respondent, with the details of residence certificates already written therein. The respondent compared these details with the presented certificates and was satisfied with the affiant's appearance as being of legal age. On whether the respondent's duty extended beyond apparent verification: The Court reiterated that the notary's primary duty is to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration. While it is incumbent upon him to at least verify the capacity of the affiant, this was done by the respondent through his assessment of Enrico Mendoza's physical appearance. The respondent was convinced that Mendoza was of the required age to execute the SPA. Therefore, the respondent lawyer acted prudently. No legal liability can arise from his act, as there was no showing of negligence, malice, or corruption. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant in disbarment proceedings, and the charge must be established by convincing proof. The complainant failed to overcome the presumption of innocence and the respondent's performance of his duty as an officer of the Court. The proceeding appeared to be motivated by vengeance due to the complainant's loss in the civil and criminal cases, rather than a genuine concern for adherence to the lawyer's oath.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is not liable for notarizing a document where an affiant appears to be of legal age, even if later discovered to be underage, if the notary acted under an honest mistake of fact and without malice, especially when the document was already prepared with the details of residence certificates filled in.