Zaballero v. Montalvan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Douglas G. Zaballero filed a verified complaint praying for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Mario J. Montalvan, a Notary Public, for alleged negligence and incompetence in notarizing three documents purportedly executed by complainant's father, Eulalio Zaballero, between 1989 and 1992. The documents were a Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Donation of Land, a Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Land, and a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of Land. Complainant alleged these documents were falsified, citing issues with Eulalio Zaballero's residence certificates and his physical condition, including his confinement in a hospital and eventual death on May 31, 1992. Complainant asserted Eulalio Zaballero could not have appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Land dated October 17, 1991, as it was notarized on June 9, 1992, after Eulalio's death. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for three months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation but modified the penalty, revoking respondent's notary public commission and disqualifying him from being appointed as such for two years. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the disbarment of the respondent notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Mario J. Montalvan was negligent and incompetent in notarizing the documents. Whether respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Mario J. Montalvan guilty of violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. The Court revoked his notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence and incompetence in notarizing the documents: The Court held that notarization is a significant act imbued with public interest, requiring notaries public to faithfully observe its legal solemnities. Respondent's act of notarizing a document on June 9, 1992, which purportedly contained the signature of Eulalio Zaballero, when Eulalio had already died on May 31, 1992, constituted making an untruthful statement. The notarial acknowledgment falsely declared that Eulalio Zaballero appeared before him and acknowledged the instrument as his free and voluntary act, when in fact he was deceased. The Court found respondent's rationalization that he was misled and did not know of Eulalio Zaballero's death to be preposterous and indicative of utter disregard for his duties. The fact that Eulalio Zaballero had previously appeared before him on October 17, 1991, should have served as a deterrent, not a justification, for proceeding with the notarization eight months later without the signatory's presence. Furthermore, respondent was inconsistent, attesting in the acknowledgment that the party appeared on June 9, 1992, while claiming in his comment that the appearance was on October 17, 1991, the date of the document itself. The Court emphasized that notaries public must ensure the persons who signed the documents are the same persons who executed them and personally appeared before them. Failure to do so undermines public confidence in notarized deeds. On the issue of violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and breach of oath as a lawyer: This directly violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from doing or declaring any falsehood, and also breached his oath as a lawyer. The Court noted that while the respondent's remorse and personal circumstances might warrant commiseration, they do not excuse the offense. Citing Ocampo v. Yrreverre, the Court imposed a penalty similar to that case, which included revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months, finding the IBP's recommendation of only revocation and disqualification insufficient.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who notarizes a document after the signatory has died, and falsely attests to the signatory's appearance and acknowledgment, commits a serious offense violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer's oath, warranting revocation of notarial commission, disqualification, and suspension from the practice of law.