Maligsa v. Cabanting
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romana R. Maligsa filed a verified affidavit-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim dated 5 May 1992. This deed purportedly involved property subject to a pending civil case. The complainant alleged that the affiant, Irene Maligsa, could not have executed and acknowledged the document on 5 May 1992 because she died on 21 April 1992, sixteen days prior. Furthermore, Irene Maligsa allegedly could not write and used a thumb mark in transactions. Procedural History: The respondent was required to comment on the complaint but failed to do so despite service. The Court considered this failure a waiver and submitted the case for decision. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim purportedly executed by Irene Maligsa, who was already deceased at the time of the notarization.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting is guilty of disbarment for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim purportedly executed by a deceased person. Whether respondent's act constitutes grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting guilty of grave misconduct. Consequently, he was ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disbarment for certifying a deed of quitclaim by a deceased person: The Court found sufficient legal basis for disciplinary action. The respondent made it appear in the Acknowledgment of the Deed of Quitclaim that the affiant signed the document and acknowledged its contents before him as Notary Public on 5 May 1992. However, the evidence clearly disclosed that the affiant, Irene Maligsa, died on 21 April 1992, sixteen days prior to the purported execution and notarization. This made it physically and legally impossible for the affiant to have executed the deed and personally subscribed to its authenticity before the respondent notary public on the specified date. The Court emphasized that Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 requires the person acknowledging an instrument to personally appear before the notary public and that the notary must certify that the person is known to him and is the same person who executed the document. The respondent's act violated these fundamental requirements of notarization. On the issue of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession: The Court held that notarization is not an empty routine but engages public interest significantly. As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, the respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties of his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. By notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, the respondent made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. The Court also noted that this was not the first time the respondent was involved in malpractice, having been previously suspended for six months for purchasing his client's property under litigation, contrary to law and ethics. Considering the serious nature of the offense and his prior misconduct, the Court found his contumacious behavior grossly degrading to the legal profession and warranted a graver penalty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Failure to do so warrants commensurate consequences, including disbarment.