Arrieta v. Llosa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 1993, which respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa notarized. The complainant alleged that three of the named vendors in the deed—Edelina T. Bonilla, Jesus T. Bonilla, and Leonardo P. Toledano—were already deceased prior to the execution of the document. Specifically, Jesus T. Bonilla died on August 22, 1992, Leonardo P. Toledano died on November 1, 1992, and Edelina T. Bonilla allegedly died on or about June 11, 1992. 2. Procedural History: The complainant, Pike P. Arrieta, initially filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Llosa for certifying the aforementioned Deed of Absolute Sale. The respondent admitted notarizing the deed but asserted he verified the signatories' authenticity, identities, and voluntariness of execution. Subsequently, on September 9, 1996, the complainant moved to dismiss the case, citing a misunderstanding and conviction that everything was in order. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal, a recommendation adopted by the Board of Governors. 3. The Petition: This Court reviewed the case despite the complainant's withdrawal and the IBP's recommendation. The core issue is whether the respondent violated notarial law by certifying a document where some signatories were deceased. The Court found that the respondent's certification, which declared that the vendors personally appeared, were known to him, executed the instrument, and acknowledged its voluntary execution, was impossible given the vendors' prior deaths. This act converted a private document into a public one, undermining public trust. The Court, considering this as the respondent's first administrative offense, found him guilty of misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa committed misconduct by certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale when some of the signatories were already deceased prior to its execution. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant warrants the dismissal of the disbarment case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the case. It found respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa guilty of misconduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Court also issued a warning that any further infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct: The Court held that respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa committed misconduct by certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale when he knew, or should have known, that some of the signatories were already deceased. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 requires that the party acknowledging an instrument must appear before the notary public, be known to the notary, and acknowledge that the instrument is his free act and deed. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantial public interest, converting a private document into a public one admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. By certifying that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano personally appeared before him when they had already died prior to the execution of the document, respondent made a false certification. This act defied imagination and belief, as it would have been impossible for the deceased individuals to personally subscribe and swear to the authenticity and validity of the Deed of Sale. The Court stressed that respondent, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, is mandated to discharge his duties with utmost care and respect for the legal solemnity of an oath, as these duties are impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy. The Court noted that respondent's explanation that he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation was no excuse, as lawyers are required to obey the laws of the land at all times and refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found it dismaying that respondent so cavalierly disregarded the requirements of the Notarial Law simply to accommodate his clients, thereby committing an illegal act without considering the possible damage or prejudice that might result. As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an instrument knowing that some signatories were long dead, especially considering his former positions of prominence. The Court concluded that while this constituted misconduct, it did not warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment as it was his first administrative offense. On the issue of the withdrawal of the complaint: The Court found the complainant's explanation for withdrawing the complaint concerning. The complainant's assertion that he was convinced everything was in order and that nobody was prejudiced, and that he himself would have acted similarly in an urgent situation, was deemed insufficient to absolve the respondent. The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and lawyers are bound by their oath to obey the Constitution and laws, and to refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct at all times. The Court stated that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or duties, which includes statutory grounds broad enough to cover practically any misconduct. Therefore, the withdrawal of the complaint, particularly with the stated reasons, did not negate the respondent's proven misconduct.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's certification of a deed of sale, attesting to the personal appearance and acknowledgment of the signatories, is a declaration that converts a private document into a public one, imbued with substantial public interest. Failure to adhere to the basic requirements of notarization, especially when the signatories are deceased prior to the document's execution, constitutes misconduct and undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial conveyances.