Fulgencio v. Martin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing two documents of sale purportedly executed by her husband, Kua Se Beng (Kua). The documents, a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land and a Bill of Sale over a Toyota sedan, were notarized by respondent on June 1, 1983, in Isabela, Basilan. Complainant alleged that Kua could not have executed these documents on that date as he was confined at the Makati Medical Center from May 30 to June 30, 1983. She also denied consenting to or signing the Deed of Absolute Sale. As a result, the land title was transferred to Chua Kim & Sons Trading Company, Inc., and the car to Wat Hua C. Ostrea. Complainant also alleged that respondent filed an "Inventory and Appraisal" in a guardianship proceeding without her knowledge, containing untrue information. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be faulted for violating notarial law by acting beyond his jurisdiction, even though forgery was not proven. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, suspending respondent's commission as Notary Public and disqualifying him from appointment for two years, finding that the documents were not signed and personally verified before respondent as required by law. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the IBP's recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin violated notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents when the signatory did not personally appear before him. Whether respondent committed falsification by making untruthful statements in the notarized documents. Whether respondent acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction as a notary public. Whether respondent filed an "Inventory and Appraisal" with false information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin guilty of violating notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His commission as Notary Public was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as such for two years. He was also suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent admitted to preparing and notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale and Bill of Sale without the vendor Kua personally appearing before him. Respondent stated in the acknowledgment that Kua personally appeared, which was an untruthful statement, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer's oath. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring notaries public to observe utmost care and ensure that signatories personally appear before them to attest to the contents and truth of the statements therein. Failure to do so undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized conveyances. On the charge of falsification: Respondent stated in the acknowledgment that Kua personally appeared, which was an untruthful statement, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer's oath. On acting beyond territorial jurisdiction: The Court agreed with the IBP that respondent breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. The notarization took place in Basilan, while the signatory was allegedly in Makati, indicating an act performed outside the notary's authorized territorial limits. On the charge of filing an "Inventory and Appraisal" with false information: The Court found this charge to be bereft of proof and did not hold respondent liable for it.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the signatory violates notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, making an untruthful statement and undermining public confidence in the integrity of notarized conveyances. Such acts also constitute a breach of the injunction not to perform notarial acts beyond one's jurisdiction.