De Guzman-Sarmiento v. Villalon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felicidad de Guzman-Sarmiento filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Godofredo A. Villalon, alleging that he prepared and notarized a deed of sale, making it appear that she personally appeared and signed before him when she did not. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Solicitor General for preliminary investigation. The Solicitor General's office filed a complaint alleging that the respondent prepared an absolute deed of sale, and that Constancia Reyes and Aida S. Bernardo (daughter of the complainant) were urged to sign on behalf of the complainant, with Aida signing her mother's name. The respondent notarized the deed using the residence certificate of Aida S. Bernardo for the complainant, who was out of the country at the time. The complainant alleged her proprietary interest was prejudiced. The Petition: The complaint prayed for the respondent's suspension from the practice of law and as a notary public for one year. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming the parties appeared before him and signed the deed in his presence in good faith. He stated he only learned of the deception at the Fiscal's Office. He also noted his advanced age and long, unblemished record.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Godofredo A. Villalon committed misconduct as a lawyer and notary public by notarizing a deed of sale without the personal appearance and proper identification of one of the signatories. Whether the respondent failed in his duty to ascertain the identity of the parties appearing before him and the voluntariness of their act in executing the deed of sale.
Ruling
The respondent was found guilty of misconduct both as a member of the bar and as a notary public. He was suspended from the practice of law and as a notary public for three (3) months, with a warning against further misbehavior.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The respondent Atty. Godofredo A. Villalon committed misconduct as a notary public. The evidence clearly showed that Mrs. Sarmiento was out of the country on January 21, 1970, the date the deed of sale was notarized. Therefore, she could not have personally appeared before the respondent to sign the document. The respondent's claim that he was deceived into believing that Aida G. Sarmiento was Mrs. Felicidad de Guzman-Sarmiento was not credible, especially given the discrepancies in the residence certificate used for identification. This failure to ensure the personal appearance of a signatory violates the fundamental duties of a notary public. On Issue 2: The respondent failed in his duty to ascertain the identity of the parties and the voluntariness of their act. The residence certificate presented as that of the complainant was actually in the name of "Miss Aida G. Sarmiento," who was single and significantly younger than the complainant. A cursory examination of this certificate would have revealed that it belonged to Aida, not the complainant. Furthermore, the residence certificate of Severino Sarmiento was issued in Manila, not Quezon City, as copied by the respondent. The fact that Constancia S. Reyes and Severino Sarmiento were balaes (relatives by affinity through marriage) of the respondent further suggested a potential for undue influence or a lack of impartial verification, although the primary failure was in the respondent's own diligence.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public commits misconduct when they notarize a deed of sale without the personal appearance and acknowledgment of one of the signatories, especially when the residence certificate used for identification clearly indicates a different person and age, demonstrating a failure in the notary's duty to ascertain identity and voluntariness. Such acts undermine public confidence in notarized documents and violate the lawyer's oath.