Rosales v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos for violation of the Notarial Law. Rosalinda alleged that her brother, Manuel A. Bernardo, borrowed her Original Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 194464. Rosalinda later sold the lot covered by the TCT to Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked for her title back, Manuel refused. Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss and presented it to the Register of Deeds. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title was already transferred to Manuel via a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Rosalinda in favor of Manuel on September 5, 1990. This deed was notarized by respondent Atty. Ramos on October 1, 1990, and entered in his Notarial Register. Rosalinda denied signing any such deed of sale. An NBI investigation revealed that Rosalinda's signature on the deed was forged, and Atty. Ramos admitted in an affidavit that he found defects in the document and Rosalinda was not present during notarization. The NBI recommended prosecution of Manuel and Atty. Ramos for Falsification of Public Document and violation of the Notarial Law for Atty. Ramos. Procedural History: The NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the City Prosecutor and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The CBD directed respondent to answer. Respondent admitted signing the deed but failed to enter it in his Notarial Registry. He claimed he signed inadvertently, through mistake, fraud, undue influence, or excusable negligence, relying on Manuel's assurances that the document was for a loan between brothers. The CBD set hearings, but the complainant failed to appear, and notices sent to her address were returned unclaimed. The IBP Board of Governors approved the CBD's recommendation to dismiss the case due to the complainant's failure to prosecute and lack of evidence. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the IBP's dismissal, finding that respondent violated the Notarial Law by failing to register the notarized deed in his notarial book, an admission he readily made.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos violated the Notarial Law by failing to record the Deed of Absolute Sale in his Notarial Register. Whether the circumstances surrounding the notarization constitute grounds for disciplinary action against respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos violated the Notarial Law. The Court revoked his commission as Notary Public, disqualified him from reappointment, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos violated the Notarial Law by failing to record the Deed of Absolute Sale in his Notarial Register: The Court held that respondent clearly violated the Notarial Law by admitting that he affixed his signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter it in his Notarial Registry Book. The Notarial Law explicitly mandates that a notary public must keep a notarial register and record all official acts performed as such, including the details of documents notarized. Failure to perform this duty is a direct violation of the law. The Court emphasized that the notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts, and documents not recorded therein cast doubt on their authenticity and evidentiary value. The failure to record is considered tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not, thereby eroding public trust. On Whether the circumstances surrounding the notarization constitute grounds for disciplinary action against respondent: The Court found that respondent's explanation that he signed the deed inadvertently or through mistake, fraud, undue influence, or excusable negligence, and that he relied on Manuel's assurances, was not a legitimate excuse. The Court found it appalling that respondent disregarded basic notarial procedures to accommodate a friend and client, displaying a lack of respect for the solemnity of an oath and ignorance of the importance of his office. The Court stressed that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents, and when a lawyer acts as a notary, a graver responsibility is placed upon him due to his oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Therefore, respondent's actions warranted disciplinary sanctions. The Court concluded that while respondent failed to exercise due diligence, disbarment was too severe, and thus imposed revocation of his commission, disqualification from reappointment, and a six-month suspension from the practice of law.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who fails to record a notarized document in his notarial registry violates the Notarial Law, and such failure is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. While disbarment may be too severe, revocation of commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law are appropriate sanctions for such violation.