Protacio v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Reuben M. Protacio filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza for allegedly failing to require parties to a notarized document to appear personally before him. The complaint stemmed from the notarization of a board resolution dated March 30, 1998, and a Deed of Assignment dated April 2, 1998. Complainant alleged that he did not sign the board resolution and that Nobuyasu Nemoto, another signatory, was out of the country on the date indicated. Complainant also denied signing the Deed of Assignment. He further pointed out that respondent had not submitted his notarial reports for March and April 1998, and the documents were not on file with the RTC of Manila. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent negligent and recommended revocation of his notarial commission for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this, modifying it to suspension and disqualification from appointment as notary public for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the respondent should be disbarred or meted a lesser penalty for the negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court suspended respondent Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza from his commission as a notary public for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that repetition of the same negligent act would be dealt with more severely. The Court found that while there was no competent proof of forgery, the respondent's failure to submit copies of the notarized documents to the Regional Trial Court of Manila was clearly established.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP that respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. The law, specifically Act No. 2103, requires 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. This necessitates the personal appearance of the parties before the notary. The Court found that Nobuyasu Nemoto, allegedly a signatory to the board resolution, could not have signed it on March 30, 1998, as he was out of the country. Respondent's explanation that the document was dated March 30, 1998, but signed on March 31, 1998, upon Nemoto's arrival, was not accepted because "Documents must speak the truth if their integrity is to be preserved." Furthermore, respondent failed to comply with Section 245 and 246 of Act No. 2657 (Administrative Code), which mandate the keeping of a notarial register and the forwarding of certified copies of entries and acknowledged instruments to the clerk of the Court of First Instance. This failure to file the required reports and documents with the Regional Trial Court of Manila was deemed a sufficient ground for disciplinary action. On the issue of appropriate penalty: While the complainant sought disbarment, the Court found that there was no competent proof of forgery. Therefore, a suspension from his commission as a notary public for one year, with a stern warning, was deemed more appropriate than disbarment, considering the established negligence in notarizing documents without the parties' personal appearance and the failure to comply with reporting requirements. The Court cited Doughlas v. Lopez Jr. and Coronado v. Felongco in determining the appropriate penalty.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must require the parties to a document to appear personally before him to affirm the contents and truth of what is stated therein. Failure to comply with this requirement, as well as the failure to submit notarial reports and copies of notarized documents to the proper court, constitutes negligence and is a ground for disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of notarial commission.