Gerona v. Datingaling
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mena U. Gerona filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alfredo Datingaling for allegedly falsifying and notarizing a "Consent to Quarry" document. The document purported to grant Ronald Reagan Hernandez, represented by Engr. Bayani N. Melo, the right to quarry on a property owned by complainant and her siblings. Complainant alleged that she and her siblings did not appear before respondent on July 2, 1997, as stated in the notarization, and that the document contained falsities, including the involvement of minors Wendy Sunshine Umali (who were two distinct individuals, Wendy aged nine and Sunshine aged twelve) and a nine-year-old Ronald Reagan Hernandez, and discrepancies in the land description. Procedural History: A falsification case was filed by complainant against respondent and others. The Provincial Prosecutor of Batangas found probable cause for falsification of a public document. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent's suspension for one year. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation with modification, suspending respondent's commission as Notary Public for two years and disqualifying him from reappointment for two years. The Petition: Respondent sought reconsideration of the IBP resolution, denying the allegations and claiming he had no participation in the transaction, merely notarizing the document presented to him. He also denied receiving the resolution requiring a rejoinder. The Supreme Court treated the motion as a petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling is guilty of falsification of a public document. Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Act No. 2103 in his capacity as a notary public.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling is found guilty of violating Act No. 2103, Section 1(a), and is suspended from his commission as notary public for a period of one (1) year. The charge of falsifying a public document is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an administrative case should the evidence warrant. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar negligent act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of falsification of a public document: The Supreme Court noted that the criminal prosecution based on the same acts charged in the administrative case was still pending trial before the Regional Trial Court. To avoid contradictory findings, the administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act must await the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore, the administrative charge of falsification was dismissed without prejudice to further action after the criminal case's resolution. On the violation of Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent violated Act No. 2103, Section 1(a), which mandates that a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. Respondent failed to require the parties to appear personally and attest to the document's contents and truth. The evidence showed discrepancies, including the involvement of minors Wendy Sunshine Umali (who were two distinct individuals) and a minor Ronald Reagan Hernandez, whose signatures were allegedly made by an unidentified person. The Court also noted that page one of the agreement appeared to have been intercalated and typed with a different machine. The Court emphasized that the acknowledgment of a document is not an empty act; it converts a private document into a public one, and the public relies on the integrity of notaries public. The Court found the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation of a two-year suspension too severe, opting for a one-year suspension, consistent with precedent.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is bound to require the parties claiming to have executed a document to appear personally before him and attest to the contents and truth of what are stated in the document. Failure to do so, especially when minors are involved or when the document itself contains discrepancies, constitutes a violation of Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.