Villarin v. Sabate, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr., and Bartolome Evarolo, Sr. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. for allegedly not observing honesty and utmost care in his duties as a notary public. The complaint stemmed from the notarization of a "Motion to Dismiss With Answer" filed in an SEC case where respondent was the counsel for the respondents in that SEC case. Complainants alleged that the signatures of Paterno Diaz and others on the verification were not theirs, with Lilian Diaz signing for Paterno Diaz, and Atty. Sabate, Jr. signing for Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado. They claimed respondent made it appear that these individuals participated when they did not. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month suspension for respondent. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Petition: The complainants prayed for administrative sanctions against respondent for failing to observe honesty and utmost care in his duties as a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public by notarizing the Motion to Dismiss With Answer. Whether respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. committed an offense by notarizing a document in which he was also a signatory in a representative capacity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. guilty of lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law and suspended him from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year. The Court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, modifying the period of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to exercise due diligence: The Court held that respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public. He notarized a "Motion to Dismiss With Answer" where he himself signed for and in behalf of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, and Lilian Diaz signed for her husband, Pastor Diaz. While respondent claimed he had authorization and that the word "By" before the signatures indicated representation, the Court found this unacceptable. The function of a notary public is to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements, and this function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument, as he would be in an inconsistent position and the purpose of minimizing fraud would be thwarted. The Court emphasized that the acts of affiants cannot be delegated to anyone, as they are facts within their personal knowledge and they must swear to them personally, not through a representative. If representation is involved, the representative's name should appear as the one executing the document. On the issue of notarizing a document in which he was a signatory: Furthermore, the Court noted that by signing the Verification of the pleading, respondent could not truthfully swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public. The Court rejected the excuse of an alleged urgent situation, stating that obedience to the laws of the land is required at all times, especially for members of the legal profession. Therefore, for notarizing the verification when three affiants were not before him and for notarizing an instrument of which he was a signatory, respondent failed in his duty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining to his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Failing therein, he must accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.