Maximino Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the actions of Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea, a notary public, in relation to a petition filed by Maximino Gamido y Buenaventura. The core issue revolves around the validity of a jurat executed by Atty. dela Rea, where he certified that the petitioner had subscribed and sworn to the petition in his presence, despite the petitioner not actually appearing before him. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1994, required Atty. dela Rea to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for falsifying the jurat. Atty. dela Rea submitted an explanation on January 25, 1995, admitting to notarizing the document without the petitioner's presence, citing his belief that it was permissible for a jurat and his prior acquaintance with the petitioner. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed Atty. dela Rea's explanation and found it unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized the distinct requirements of a jurat, which necessitates the affiant's personal appearance and oath before the notary public, contrasting it with an acknowledgment. The Court determined that Atty. dela Rea's actions constituted grave misconduct, leading to a fine of P5,000.00 and a warning against future transgressions.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct in notarizing the jurat of the petition without the personal appearance of the petitioner. Whether Atty. dela Rea's explanation for his actions is satisfactory.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. dela Rea's explanation unsatisfactory. It held that he committed grave misconduct and imposed a fine of P5,000.00, with a warning against future similar acts. The Court also stated that the act was without prejudice to criminal prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It emphasized that a jurat, which typically begins with "Subscribed and sworn to before me," is not merely a part of a pleading but evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. This requires the affiant's personal appearance and the administration of an oath by the notary public. The Court clarified that the claim of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for a jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is baseless. If this were his belief, he had been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath. The Court further stated that his prior acquaintance and friendship with the petitioner provided no excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If he wanted to accommodate a friend inside prison, he could have visited the latter's cell, as he admitted to having been in and out of the New Bilibid Prisons. Therefore, by agreeing to prepare the jurat in the absence of petitioner Gamido, Atty. dela Rea committed grave misconduct. On the issue of whether Atty. dela Rea's explanation is satisfactory: The Court found his explanation unsatisfactory. While his spontaneous voluntary admission was considered in mitigation of his liability, his belief that the presence of the affiant was not necessary for a jurat was deemed patently baseless. As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public for a long time, he should have known the similarities and differences between a jurat and an acknowledgment. His assertion that he acted in the honest belief that it would be alright, and that he felt he could contribute to the orderly administration of justice, did not absolve him from his administrative liability. The Court stressed that duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, and should not be taken for granted.
Main Doctrine
A notary public commits grave misconduct when he executes a jurat without the affiant appearing before him and taking his oath, as the jurat evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made, which requires the affiant's personal appearance and oath.