Aquino v. Manese
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Fidel D. Aquino charged Atty. Oscar Manese with falsification of a public document for preparing and notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994. The complainant alleged that one of the vendors, Lilia D. Cardona, could not have executed the deed as she had died on November 25, 1990, four years prior to the execution of the deed. The complainant, a tenant of the land subject of the sale, claimed he was unaware of the deed's execution. Attached to the complaint were various documents, including the death certificate of Lilia Cardona and a questioned documents report from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) finding that the signature on the deed did not match Lilia Cardona's specimen signatures. Procedural History: The case was initially filed with the Office of the President and forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator. It was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, citing ill health and unavailability of counsel. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report finding the respondent gravely remiss in his obligations as a notary public and recommended the suspension of his notarial commission and disqualification for appointment as Notary Public for two years, modifying the original recommendation of revocation and suspension from the practice of law. The Petition: The complainant, Fidel D. Aquino, filed a sworn letter-complaint dated September 7, 1998, charging Atty. Oscar Manese with falsification of a public document. The complainant alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994, could not have been executed by Lilia D. Cardona, who had died four years prior. The complainant further alleged that he had been a tenant of the land subject of the sale since 1960 and was unaware of the deed's execution. The complaint was accompanied by several supporting documents, including Lilia Cardona's death certificate and an NBI report questioning the authenticity of her signature on the deed. The respondent, Atty. Manese, argued in his comment that the complainant lacked personality to complain, as he had no legal claim over the land and no interested party had raised objections. He also asserted that as a notary public, he was not expected to know every person who appeared before him and was merely performing his duty.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant has the personality to institute the complaint. Whether the respondent, as a notary public, committed falsification of a public document by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale where one of the signatories was already deceased and her signature was found to be forged.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Atty. Oscar Manese guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if extant, was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. He was also suspended from the practice of law for two years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of complainant's personality: The Court held that the complainant, as a tenant of the land subject to the sale, had the personality to institute the complaint because his rights as a tenant were disturbed by the transfer of ownership. Furthermore, proceedings for disbarment or discipline of attorneys may be initiated by the Court or the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. On the issue of falsification and violation of notarial duties: The Court found that the death of Lilia Cardona on November 25, 1990, was duly documented by her Death Certificate. The NBI's questioned documents report confirmed that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale did not belong to Lilia Cardona. The respondent, in notarizing the deed, affirmed in the acknowledgment that the vendors, including the deceased Lilia Cardona, personally appeared before him and were known to him to be the same individuals who executed the instrument. This contradicted his assertion that he is not expected to personally know every person who appears before him for notarization. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public one. Notaries public must observe utmost care in ascertaining the identity of the signatories and ensuring that the document is their free act and deed. By recklessly notarizing the deed without verifying the signatories' identities and presence, the respondent undermined public confidence in notarial documents and breached Canon I and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ascertain that the persons who signed a document personally appeared before him and are the same individuals who executed the document, as failure to do so undermines public confidence in notarial documents and constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.