Traya, Jr. v. Villamor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya applied for a building permit for the renovation of a building on a lot owned by her brother, Rolando de la Cruz, who was residing abroad. To process the application, an affidavit was prepared falsely stating that Rolando was a resident of Abuyog, Leyte, to satisfy the requirements of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Atty. Francisco M. Villamor notarized the affidavit despite the fact that Rolando was out of the country. Procedural History: Octavio J. Traya, Jr., then Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, filed a sworn letter-complaint with the Supreme Court on May 22, 1996, alleging the affidavit was spurious. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension of the respondent's notarial commission, finding he failed to observe proper procedure in identifying the affiant. The Petition: This is an administrative disciplinary proceeding against Atty. Villamor. The respondent argued that a 'Chinese mestizo' appeared in his office claiming to be Rolando de la Cruz and confirmed the signature on the document. He further contended that he did not require the production of the Residence Certificate (RC) because the number was already indicated in the jurat. It was later discovered that the RC number actually belonged to the affiant's brother-in-law, Benjamin Catalya.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Francisco M. Villamor is guilty of gross misconduct for notarizing an affidavit without the presence of the affiant and for making false entries in the jurat regarding the exhibition of a residence certificate.
Ruling
Atty. Francisco M. Villamor is found GUILTY of gross misconduct in his notarial practice and is perpetually DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that a notary public has a solemn duty to demand that the document presented for notarization be signed in his presence. This requirement is essential because a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, as established in Realino v. Villamor. By respondent's own admission, the affidavit was already signed when presented, which constitutes a clear failure to comply with elementary formalities. Furthermore, the respondent admitted that he did not personally verify the Residence Certificate (RC) because the number was already written on the document. Under the ruling in Vda. de Guerrero v. Hernando, a notary who makes it appear in a jurat that an affiant exhibited an RC when they did not is guilty of misconduct. Such misrepresentation violates the mandate in the attorney's oath to 'obey the law' and 'do no falsehood.' Given that the respondent had previously been reprimanded and warned in connection with his notarial duties in a prior case, the Court found his continued disregard for the law to be blatant and deserving of the stricter penalty of perpetual disqualification.
Main Doctrine
The act of notarizing a document without the presence of the affiant and making it appear in the jurat that a residence certificate was exhibited when it was not constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath to do no falsehood. Notarial duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest, requiring faithful observance of legal solemnities. Failure to comply with these formalities undermines the full faith and credit given to notarial documents and justifies disciplinary action, including perpetual disqualification from notarial practice for repeat offenders.