Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominador L. Cabanilla applied for a miscellaneous patent for a parcel of land where he was permitted to construct a house. Following the death of his wife, Revelina, who was a co-owner of the property, Dominador sold a portion of his rights over the house to his neighbor, Rodolfo Sabangan. The deed of sale, however, was prepared in a manner that suggested Dominador was relinquishing rights to both the house portion and the land, contrary to their agreement. Dominador noted his objections and requested revisions, but the deed was not amended. Subsequently, a miscellaneous patent was granted to Dominador, and a title was issued in the names of the Cabanilla spouses. Procedural History: Dominador filed a civil complaint to annul the deed of sale, but the defendant, Rodolfo Sabangan, could not be served summons. Respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio, engaged by Sabangan's family, filed a motion for substituted service and an answer on behalf of Sabangan. Later, Dominador and some of his children filed a joint affidavit of complaint for falsification against Rodolfo and the respondent with the City Prosecutor's Office. The respondent asserted she acted in good faith, having verified the parties' signatures and residence certificates. The prosecutor dismissed the complaint against the respondent but found probable cause against Rodolfo. Meanwhile, civil cases filed by Dominador and his children to annul the deed of sale were dismissed due to litis pendentia and forum-shopping. Dominador then filed an affidavit of complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the respondent's disbarment, alleging she notarized the deed without the parties appearing before her and that the signatures were forgeries. A criminal complaint for perjury was also filed against the respondent. The Petition: The complainant, Dominador L. Cabanilla, filed an affidavit of complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio. The core of the complaint is that the respondent notarized a deed of sale without the complainant and his children appearing before her, and that their purported signatures on the deed were forgeries. The complainant asserts that he and his children never met the respondent or appeared before her, and that Manuel Cabanilla, et al., were not parties to the deed. The petition argues that the respondent failed to exercise due diligence, notarized a defective document, and made false statements in her counter-affidavit, thereby violating notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of the respondent's commission as notary public and a two-year disqualification, which was affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors. This decision is now before the Supreme Court for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio notarized the deed of sale without the complainant Dominador L. Cabanilla and his children appearing before her, and whether she failed to exercise due diligence and comply with the mandates of the law in notarizing the deed of sale. Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, finding respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio guilty of breaching notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her commission as Notary Public was revoked, and she was disqualified from being commissioned as such for two years. She was also suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the complainant Dominador L. Cabanilla and his children appearing before her, and whether she failed to exercise due diligence and comply with the mandates of the law: The Court found convincing evidence that the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the parties appearing before her and acknowledging the same. The respondent failed to exercise the functions of her office and comply with legal mandates. Specifically, the deed contained patent defects, including Dominador's clear intent to sell only a portion of the house, not the land, which was evident from his notations and request for changes. A conscientious notary public should have noticed these defects and advised the parties to revise the deed. Furthermore, the acknowledgment falsely certified that Dominador's children, who were not vendors on the first page, also appeared before her and acknowledged the deed. This violated the principle that a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to them and is the same person who executed it. The Court held that the respondent failed to exercise due diligence. She notarized a deed with apparent defects and a clear discrepancy between the stated agreement and the document's text. Moreover, the acknowledgment included individuals who were not listed as vendors on the first page of the deed, making their appearance and acknowledgment before the notary impossible in the context of the sale. The respondent also failed to require the parties to present their residence certificates, a mandatory requirement to verify identities and prevent impostors. The numbers and places of issue for many residence certificates were either missing, illegible, or replaced with names, indicating a gross violation of notarial rules. On the issue of whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility: The respondent's actions constituted a violation of Canon I and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, promote respect for the law, and refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By falsely stating under oath in her counter-affidavit that the parties appeared before her and that the deed was in order, she made an untruthful statement, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code and her lawyer's oath to do no falsehood. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty routine but a solemn act that converts a private document into a public one, and undermining public confidence in notarial documents is unacceptable. The respondent's reliance on the complainant's delay in filing the complaint or alleged ill motive was dismissed, as the disciplinary authority of the Court cannot be defeated by such factors.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of their duties, including verifying the identities of parties appearing before them and ensuring the authenticity of signatures. Failure to comply with notarial requirements, such as the proper presentation and recording of residence certificates, and notarizing a defective document, constitutes a breach of notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.