Dinoy v. Rosal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Julian C. Dinoy charged Atty. Jesus Rosal with notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated May 8, 1989, in favor of Estela Gentacutan, at a time when two of the principals named in the document, Cesaria Bacalla and Jose Gentacutan, were already deceased. Evidence presented included death certificates and burial records indicating Cesaria Bacalla died on February 10, 1981, and Jose Gentacutan died on April 2, 1974. Procedural History: The complaint was indorsed to the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. After exchanges of communications and orders, including a change of venue to Cebu City, respondent Atty. Rosal filed a verified answer asserting that despite a heavy workload, he interviewed each signatory and was satisfied they were who they claimed to be. The IBP Committee, through its designated commissioner, found that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the identities and capacities of the signatories, noting the high volume of documents notarized by respondent around the date in question. The IBP Committee recommended a six-month suspension, which was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the IBP and considered the evidence of record.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jesus Rosal was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the recommended penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the conclusions of the IBP were supported by substantial evidence and adopted them as its own. The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Jesus Rosal was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. However, the Court found the recommended penalty of six (6) months suspension to be unduly harsh and modified it. Accordingly, Atty. Jesus Rosal is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months, with a WARNING against repetition of similar conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in the performance of duties as a notary public: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP that respondent failed to exercise due diligence. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public one, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgments executed by notaries public. It is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in his presence by the real parties thereto and to observe "utmost care" in complying with elementary formalities. The evidence presented, including death certificates showing two of the eight co-owners who executed the SPA were already deceased before the notarization, clearly demonstrated respondent's failure to observe the required standard of care. Furthermore, the respondent's admission of a heavy workload on the day of notarization rendered it unlikely that he conducted a careful interview of each signatory. On the appropriateness of the penalty: While agreeing that administrative sanction was warranted for negligence, the Court found the recommended penalty of six months' suspension to be unduly harsh. This was considering that the complainant had not shown that the respondent acted with malice, ill-will, or bad faith, and that the complaint pertained to the notarization of only one document. Therefore, the Court reduced the penalty to three months' suspension.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care in verifying the identities and capacities of the parties executing a document, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, warranting administrative sanction.