Salomon v. Blanco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Francisca Salomon filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Froilan Blanco, then Municipal Judge of Pilar, Bataan, for alleged gross misconduct, irregularity, and falsification in his capacity as ex-officio notary public. The complaint stemmed from the notarization of an "Extra-Judicial Partition and Absolute Deed of Sale" involving a property co-owned by Salomon and her deceased sister Josefa Salomon, survived by Rogelio and Abraham Gatdula. Salomon alleged that she and her nephews never appeared before the respondent judge to sign the document, nor did they exhibit their residence certificates. Notably, Abraham Gatdula was only 13 or 14 years old at the time and could not have possessed a residence certificate. Findings from PC Document Examiners indicated that the signatures of Francisca Salomon and Abraham Gatdula on the document were forged. Consequently, a civil case was filed for the nullification of the said instrument, which resulted in a judgment declaring the document null and void and ordering the cancellation of titles derived from it. Procedural History: Respondent judge moved for the suspension of the administrative case until the termination of the civil case, which was denied. The respondent filed an answer admitting notarization but asserting compliance with legal requirements and contesting the findings of the crime laboratory. The parties agreed to adopt evidence from the civil case in the administrative case. The investigating judge noted several apparent infirmities and discrepancies in the document, including conflicting death dates of Ramon and Josefa Gatdula, visibly different signatures of Abraham Gatdula, handwritten additions to the typewritten title "Notary Public" and "Justice of the Peace," dubious issuance of consecutive residence certificates to Rogelio and Abraham Gatdula on the same day, and Francisca Salomon exhibiting a residence certificate issued in Manila despite her supposed residence in Caloocan. The Petition: The administrative case sought to hold Judge Froilan Blanco liable for gross misconduct, irregularity, and falsification in his ex-officio notarial functions, leading to the improper conveyance of a property through a forged and irregularly notarized deed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Froilan Blanco was negligent and committed gross misconduct in notarizing the "Extra-Judicial Partition and Absolute Deed of Sale" despite apparent infirmities and the absence of one of the supposed signatories. Whether the notarization of the deed was irregular and improper, violating basic legal requirements for notarial acts.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Froilan Blanco guilty of notarizing the questioned Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Sale in the absence of complainant, one of the supposed deponents. He was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary of one (1) month, with a warning against repetition of similar errors.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence and gross misconduct in notarizing the deed: The Court found the respondent judge negligent in notarizing the "Extra-Judicial Partition and Absolute Deed of Sale." The investigation revealed several infirmities and discrepancies in the document, including conflicting death dates of individuals, visibly different signatures of Abraham Gatdula, handwritten additions to the typewritten title "Notary Public" and "Justice of the Peace," and questionable issuance of residence certificates. Furthermore, Abraham Gatdula was a minor at the time of the execution, rendering him incapable of giving consent to the contract under Article 1327(1) of the Civil Code. The respondent judge failed to require the supposed deponents to personally appear before him and attest to the truth of the contents of the instrument, which is a basic requirement for notarization. This carelessness led to the improper registration of the property in the name of Araceli Calimbas. The Court emphasized that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and notaries public must observe utmost care to comply with elementary formalities. The respondent's act of following up papers for registration with the Register of Deeds was also deemed inappropriate for a judge, as it compromised impartiality and integrity. On the irregularity and impropriety of the notarization: The Court affirmed that the notarization of the deed was irregular, improper, and not in accordance with law. The discrepancies and infirmities plainly revealed that the requirements of the law had been ignored in the notarial act. The respondent judge's ratification of a document with such defects without due caution indicated haste and carelessness. Had the formalities required by law been observed, the property could not have been registered in Araceli Calimbas's name. The Court reiterated that notarization is a critical function that requires strict adherence to legal formalities to maintain public trust in the integrity of conveyancing. The fact that the civil case for nullification resulted in a judgment declaring the deed null and void further substantiated the impropriety of the notarization performed by the respondent.
Main Doctrine
A judge acting as an ex-officio notary public must exercise utmost care and comply with elementary formalities in notarizing documents, as failure to do so constitutes negligence and can undermine public confidence in the integrity of notarial acts. Notarizing a document with apparent infirmities and without requiring personal appearance of the parties, especially when a minor is involved, is improper and irregular.