Bon v. Ziga and Arcangel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alfredo Bon filed a disbarment complaint against Attys. Victor S. Ziga and Antonio A. Arcangel. The complainant alleged that respondents, through fraud, intimidation, stealth, deception, and monetary consideration, caused Amalia Bon-Padre Borjal, Teresa Bon-Padre Patenio, Felecito Bon, and Angelina Bon (the Bons) to sign a Waiver and Quitclaim. The Bons allegedly believed the document was merely a withdrawal of a Special Power of Attorney, but it turned out to be a waiver of their inherited properties in favor of Ziga. The complainant also claimed that the Bons, residents of Manila, did not personally appear before Arcangel in Albay to acknowledge the document, yet Arcangel notarized it, making it appear they did. Procedural History: The respondents filed a Joint Comment, arguing that the complainant, being a stranger to the document, lacked the legal standing to file the complaint. They asserted that the Bons themselves, being the parties to the alleged defective document, should be the ones to file the complaint. They also presented affidavits from co-signatories and witnesses stating the document's contents were explained and that the Bons, being educated, could not have been deceived. Arcangel argued that any violation of the Notarial Law would not be a ground for disbarment and claimed substantial compliance by speaking to co-signatories over the phone. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that the Bons' failure to annul the Waiver and Quitclaim cast doubt on their claims and that Arcangel's actions, while remiss, did not constitute disbarment grounds. The complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed a motion for re-examination with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of respondents Ziga and Arcangel for alleged fraud, deception, intimidation, and violation of notarial duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant has the legal standing to file the disbarment complaint. Whether Atty. Ziga employed fraud, deception, and intimidation in procuring the signatures of the Bons on the Waiver and Quitclaim. Whether Atty. Arcangel breached his duties as a notary public in notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim.
Ruling
The complaint against Atty. Victor S. Ziga is DISMISSED for lack of merit. As regards Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, his commission as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the complainant's legal standing: The Court found that the complainant's claim of having a right to complain over the acquisition of properties mentioned in the Waiver and Quitclaim and his right to inform the Court of alleged deception were insufficient to grant him legal standing to file a disbarment complaint, especially when the parties to the document themselves had not formally impugned it. The respondents correctly argued that only the parties whose rights were allegedly violated could file a complaint based on intrinsic defects of the document. The complainant's assertion of having a right to complain because he was mentioned in the document did not confer upon him the standing to question its validity in a disbarment proceeding. On Atty. Ziga's alleged fraud, deception, and intimidation: The Court found it difficult to ascribe fraud, intimidation, stealth, and deception to Ziga's actions. The educational attainment of Amalia, Angelina, and Teresa Bon (high school and college graduates) made it improbable that they were deceived into signing a document whose contents they could have easily ascertained. The Court reiterated the principle that a person signing a contract is presumed to know its contents, and even illiterate persons are negligent if they fail to have the contract read to them. The Waiver and Quitclaim itself was plainly worded, admitting that their predecessors sold the properties to the Ziga family in 1930 and that only Alfredo Bon (the complainant) still claimed rights. Furthermore, the Bons' failure to file an action to set aside the Waiver and Quitclaim for almost four years diminished their claim of being defrauded. The affidavits of co-signatories and witnesses, attesting that the document's contents were explained, further belied the complainant's allegations. On Atty. Arcangel's breach of duty as a notary public: The Court found that Arcangel committed an unpardonable breach of his duty as a notary public by notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all signatories to personally appear before him and acknowledge the same as their free act and deed. Arcangel's admission that the Bons did not personally appear and his reliance on telephone conversations with co-signatories and the belief in the genuineness of signatures did not constitute substantial compliance with the Notarial Law. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring notaries public to observe utmost care. The principle that the party executing the instrument must personally appear before the notary public to acknowledge the document is fundamental and cannot be delegated. Arcangel's failure to exercise due diligence violated Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without requiring the signatories to personally appear before him and acknowledge the same as their free act and deed commits a breach of his duty as a notary public, violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. While such transgression may not warrant disbarment, it can lead to revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from the practice of law.