Joson v. Baltazar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marciano Joson filed an administrative case against Atty. Gloria M. Baltazar for alleged violation of the Revised Penal Code and grave malpractice. The charges stemmed from two main allegations: (a) respondent notarized a deed of sale where it was made to appear that complainant sold 150 square meters of unregistered land when the actual agreement was for only 50 square meters, and (b) respondent's notarial commission had expired at the time of notarization. Procedural History: The complaint and answer were referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The OSG submitted its report on March 28, 1990. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of the respondent lawyer.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed malpractice by making it appear that 150 square meters were sold when only 50 square meters were agreed upon. Whether the respondent committed malpractice by notarizing a deed of sale with an expired notarial commission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court suspended respondent Atty. Gloria M. Baltazar-Aguirre from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (discrepancy in area sold): The Court found that the charge of malpractice regarding the discrepancy in the area of land sold was not substantiated. The complainant's sole evidence was his own testimony, which was deemed incompetent to vary the terms of the written deed of sale due to the parole evidence rule. Furthermore, the complainant admitted to reading the deed of sale and finding it conformed to the agreement, and his subsequent actions suggested a scheme to nullify the sale rather than a genuine mistake in the document. The Court noted that the complainant's testimony alone was insufficient to prove a mistake or that the deed failed to express the true intent of the parties. On the second issue (expired notarial commission): The Court found the respondent guilty of malpractice and falsification of a public document for notarizing a deed of sale with an expired notarial commission. The respondent did not deny that her commission had expired. While she claimed to have applied for renewal and acted in good faith, the Court found her explanation insufficient, emphasizing that she had become aware that her petition for renewal had not been filed before notarizing the document. The Court held that notarization is not an empty routine and that the public must be able to rely on the integrity of acknowledgments executed by notaries public. The Court cited City Fiscal R. Lozada v. Dominador E. Flores where a similar act led to disbarment, but considering the single instance in this case, a suspension of three months was deemed adequate.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document despite an expired notarial commission commits malpractice and falsification of a public document, engaging public interest and warranting disciplinary action.