Gokioco v. Mateo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Atty. Rafael P. Mateo for falsification of a public document. The complaint alleged that respondent notarized and filed a civil complaint on November 10, 1992, which was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco. However, See Chua-Gokioco had died on October 7, 1992, and respondent, as counsel for the family, was allegedly aware of her death. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner found respondent liable for misconduct, recommending a reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the case and disagreed with the penalty, finding it not commensurate with the misconduct. The Petition: The complainant sought disciplinary action against respondent for alleged falsification of a public document, violation of the Notarial Law, lawyer's oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rafael P. Mateo is guilty of misconduct for notarizing a document subscribed and sworn to by a deceased person. Whether the penalty of reprimand is commensurate to the offense committed by the respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Rafael P. Mateo guilty of misconduct. The Court ruled that the penalty of reprimand was not commensurate to the offense and imposed a suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The Court also issued a stern warning against future misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Rafael P. Mateo is guilty of misconduct for notarizing a document subscribed and sworn to by a deceased person: The Court affirmed that respondent is guilty of misconduct. The jurat of the civil complaint stated that it was subscribed and sworn to on November 10, 1992, but the death certificate showed that See Chua Gokioco died on October 7, 1992. This act constitutes a violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from doing or consenting to falsehood or misleading the court. Furthermore, respondent failed to make the proper entries in his notarial register as required by Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law, specifically by not recording the true date of verification. The Court rejected respondent's explanation that he delayed the entry and filing hoping for an amicable settlement, emphasizing that the jurat must truthfully reflect all information and that there is no rule allowing such delay. The Court also noted that respondent did not raise this explanation at the earliest opportunity. The act of notarizing a document when the affiant was absent, especially when deceased, means the affiant did not sign or subscribe to the complaint in the presence of the notary public on the date stated, as the affiant was already dead or otherwise absent. This is a dereliction of duty on the part of a notary public, which is a ground for revocation of commission under Section 249 of the Notarial Law. On whether the penalty of reprimand is commensurate to the offense committed by the respondent: The Court held that the penalty of reprimand was not commensurate. The Court considered that this was not the first administrative case filed against respondent concerning his commission as a notary public. In a previous case, Follosco v. Mateo (A.C. No. 6186), respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three months and his notarial commission revoked for one year for notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the affiants. Although the penalty in that case was later reduced, the fact that it was a repeat offense weighed heavily in the present decision. The Court reiterated that faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct, and the act of notarization is invested with substantive public interest. A lawyer, as a notary public, bears a graver responsibility due to his solemn oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Failing in these duties necessitates commensurate consequences. Therefore, considering the repeated misconduct, the Court imposed a more severe penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, with a stern warning.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document making it appear that the affiant personally appeared and swore to the contents when the affiant was already deceased at the time of notarization commits misconduct, violating his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The penalty for such misconduct, especially for a repeat offense, may include suspension from the practice of law and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public.