Gonzaga v. Realubin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Napoleon R. Gonzaga and Ricardo R. Gonzaga filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin, a Notary Public. The complaint alleged malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of oath of office. Specifically, the complainants averred that respondent falsely testified during a deposition that they appeared before him on August 1, 1977, to have an authority for Atty. Eugenio Villanueva to appear as counsel for the estate of their late parents notarized. They claimed they never appeared before respondent on that date and that the notarial register entry was tampered with, with the true notary public's name and the year of receipt for the register purchase being erased and altered. They presented certifications from the Office of the Solicitor General and an official receipt showing the register was sold to a Pedro Geling on January 29, 1976, not 1977. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Solicitor General, who submitted a report confirming the charges and recommending the respondent's suspension. The Solicitor General's report highlighted the issue of credibility between the complainants and the respondent. The Petition: The complainants sought the disbarment of Atty. Realubin for alleged malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath of office due to false testimony and tampering with his notarial register.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin committed malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath of office. Whether the respondent gave false testimony during the deposition taking and tampered with his notarial register.
Ruling
The Court finds the respondent Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath of office. The Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of oath of office, malpractice, and gross misconduct: The Court found that the respondent clearly violated Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code. Furthermore, the respondent violated his oath as a lawyer not to do any falsehood and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from doing falsehood or consenting to its commission, or misleading the court. Notarization is a matter of public interest, and falsely certifying that complainants personally appeared before him and acknowledged the document as their free and voluntary act is reprehensible misconduct. The Court considered the recommended penalty of six months suspension adequate given that only one instance of false notarization was involved. On the issue of false testimony and tampering with the notarial register: The Court sustained the complainants' claim that they never appeared before the respondent for the notarization of their authority to Atty. Villanueva. Napoleon Gonzaga testified that he signed the document in San Antonio Church on August 1, 1977, and never met the respondent before the investigation. He also stated that the document did not have a jurat when he signed it, it was late in the evening, and there was no urgency. Ricardo Gonzaga corroborated this, stating he also never appeared before the respondent for the notarization on August 1, 1977, and only met him during the investigation. Dionisio Jakosalem Buencamino testified that Napoleon Gonzaga was with him at the church around 6:00 to 6:20 PM on August 1, 1977, just before a requiem mass, and saw Napoleon sign a paper which was later identified as the authority for Atty. Villanueva. The Court found the lone testimony of the respondent, claiming the brothers appeared before him at 9:00 AM on August 1, 1977, to be insufficient against the positive testimonies of the three witnesses. The respondent's failure to present his secretaries or Atty. Villanueva to corroborate his claim further weakened his position. The Court also noted the respondent's practice of leaving blank spaces between entries in his Notarial Register, which is a clear violation of Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code and facilitates ante-dating of documents. This practice, coupled with the false testimony and tampering, demonstrated a violation of his oath to do no falsehood and to obey the laws.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who falsifies entries in his notarial register, tampers with official documents, and gives false testimony violates his oath of office, commits malpractice and gross misconduct, and is subject to disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.