Lara v. Barretto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The complainant, NBI Agent Teodorico F. Lara, sought the disbarment of Atty. Pedro M. Barretto for alleged falsification of a public document. The spouses Dionisio Arena and Restituta Arandela owned a parcel of coconut land traversed by a National Power Corporation power line, causing damage to trees. To collect compensation, a power of attorney was executed in favor of their son, Tiburcio. The widow, Restituta, and most of the children signed the document. Florentina, one of the children, refused to sign due to estrangement from her family. Her sister, Lita, signed for her. Atty. Barretto formalized this power of attorney as the notary public. The specific complaint against Atty. Barretto was that he stated in the acknowledgment that Florentina personally appeared before him and exhibited her residence certificate, when in fact she did not. Florentina later discovered her signature was forged, complained to the NBI, leading to a criminal complaint for falsification against Restituta, Lita, and Atty. Barretto, and the instant disbarment complaint against Atty. Barretto. Procedural History: The disbarment complaint was referred to the Solicitor General, who commissioned the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon to conduct the investigation due to the parties' residence in that province. The Provincial Fiscal attempted reconciliation and, after protracted conferences, Florentina executed a document affirming the Special Power of Attorney and requesting the withdrawal of her complaint against Atty. Barretto, her mother, and her sister. Due to the complainant's lack of interest and hostility, the criminal complaint for falsification was dismissed. The Provincial Fiscal recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Atty. Barretto with an admonition, considering no damage was suffered by Florentina and she had validated the Special Power of Attorney. The Solicitor General concurred with this recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution based on the recommendation of the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Pedro M. Barretto committed misconduct as a notary public by acknowledging a special power of attorney without the personal appearance of all signatories thereto. Whether the subsequent validation of the special power of attorney by the signatory who did not personally appear before the notary public absolves the notary public of his misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Pedro M. Barretto for acknowledging the special power of attorney without the personal appearance of all signatories thereto and warned him that repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely. The administrative complaint for disbarment was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct as a notary public: The Court found that Atty. Barretto committed misconduct by acknowledging the special power of attorney without the personal appearance of all signatories. The respondent himself admitted that Florentina did not personally appear before him, and that only Gaspar and Senen personally appeared. The Court emphasized that a notary public is required to ensure the personal appearance of the parties executing a document before him. Stating in the acknowledgment that a party personally appeared when they did not constitutes a falsification of a public document and a violation of the notary's duty. The Court noted that the respondent's justification that the instrument was a simple power of attorney and that no one waived any rights was not a valid defense against the procedural requirement of personal appearance. The integrity of public documents, especially those notarized, relies on the strict adherence to these formalities. The failure to comply with the requirement of personal appearance undermines the public trust placed in notaries public. On the issue of subsequent validation absolving the notary public: While the Court ultimately dismissed the disbarment complaint and reprimanded the respondent, it did not state that the subsequent validation absolved him of the misconduct. Instead, the dismissal was based on the recommendation of the Provincial Fiscal and the Solicitor General, considering the lack of interest from the complainant, the reconciliation within the family, and the fact that no damage was suffered by Florentina, who had validated the document. The Court's action was a reprimand and a warning, indicating that the misconduct, though not leading to disbarment in this instance, was still a serious matter. The validation by Florentina, while resolving the underlying dispute among the family members and preventing further criminal prosecution, did not retroactively legitimize the notary's failure to perform his duties correctly at the time of notarization. The Court's decision to reprimand Atty. Barretto underscores that the validation does not erase the initial breach of duty.
Main Doctrine
A notary public commits misconduct for acknowledging a public document without the personal appearance of all signatories, even if the document is a simple power of attorney and no damage is ultimately suffered by the parties.