Bernardo v. Restauro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo and Marcelino G. Soriano were co-owners of a parcel of land. On June 8, 1992, complainant filed a disbarment petition against respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro for malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct. Complainant alleged that on July 19, 1990, respondent prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) making it appear that she, her deceased spouse Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as attorney-in-fact to sell the land. Complainant asserted that she and her deceased spouse never appeared before respondent to execute and acknowledge the SPA. She further stated that her husband had died over ten years prior to the execution of the SPA, evidenced by a death certificate. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the hearing, complainant testified and identified documents. Respondent submitted a Manifestation waiving his right to attend the hearing due to previous commitments and later filed Comments/Objections to complainant's Formal Offer of Evidence, asserting he acted in good faith and that the parties appeared before him. The Investigating Commissioner found that it was not satisfactorily established that respondent was a party to the fraudulent execution, but noted that respondent's participation was based on identification papers and representations. The Commissioner recommended reprimand and indefinite revocation of respondent's notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. This Court noted the Resolution. The Petition: Complainant prayed for respondent's disbarment or indefinite suspension and for respondent to pay the value of her share in the property, attorney's fees, and costs.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney, and whether he failed to exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the persons executing the Special Power of Attorney. What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent?
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro is suspended as notary public for six (6) months for failure to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as notary public, and is warned that a similar incident in the future shall be dealt with more severely. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney, and whether he failed to exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the persons executing the Special Power of Attorney: The Court agreed with the IBP that respondent, as a notary public, should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the persons executing the SPA. The SPA authorized the sale of complainant's share in a property, a matter involving disposition of property. While a notary public is not obliged to go beyond the identification papers presented and investigate further to ascertain the real identity of the executing party, this rule does not disregard the responsibilities of a notary public. The office of a notary public is imbued with public trust and service, requiring due diligence. The Court found that respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence. The Investigating Commissioner noted that while a notary public is duty-bound to require personal presence and acknowledgment, and to require identification papers, the rule does not disregard the responsibilities of a notary public. The office is imbued with public trust and service, obliging the notary to exercise due diligence in ascertaining true identity. In this case, the notary public should have exerted utmost efforts to determine the real identity of the persons executing the SPA, given that it authorized the sale of a property. The Court reiterated that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely on acknowledgments executed before a notary public. Therefore, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties with accuracy and fidelity. The Court found that respondent's act did not warrant disbarment or indefinite suspension, considering the absence of evidence of fraud involved on his part. On What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent: The Court found that the act of respondent did not warrant disbarment or indefinite suspension. Considering all the circumstances, particularly the absence of any evidence of fraud involved, the Court deemed a suspension of six (6) months as a notary public to be sufficient. The Court cautioned respondent, and all notaries public, to be very careful and diligent in ascertaining the true identities of parties executing documents, especially when involving disposition of property, as future incidents will be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is mandated to exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of persons executing documents, especially those involving disposition of property, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, warranting disciplinary action.