Tabas v. Mangibin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Hilda D. Tabas mortgaged a real property to secure a loan. Subsequently, a certain Lilia Castillejos, falsely representing herself as the complainant, appeared before respondent Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin to have a discharge of the said mortgage prepared and notarized. Respondent notarized the deed after Lilia Castillejos presented a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). The mortgagor then mortgaged the property again. Complainant discovered the cancellation and informed respondent that her signature was forged, but respondent allegedly took no action and threatened a counter-suit. Procedural History: The case was filed with the Supreme Court for disbarment. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP recommended a warning for the respondent. The Bar Confidant, however, found the respondent liable for gross negligence and recommended a one-year suspension. The Petition: Complainant sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Mangibin for allegedly committing forgery.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin is liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent's notarial commission should be revoked, he should be disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public, and he should be suspended from the practice of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked respondent Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin's notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's liability for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that respondent Atty. Mangibin is liable for gross negligence in the discharge of his duties as a notary public. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. Notaries public must observe utmost care and are required to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before them to ensure the genuineness of the signature and that the document is the party's free act and deed. Respondent's reliance solely on a CTC, despite preparing the discharge of mortgage himself and having the opportunity to interview Lilia Castillejos regarding the deed, showed a serious lack of due care. His conduct undermined the confidence of the public in notarial documents and caused grave injury to the complainant, breaching Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that respondent's claim of good faith was unavailing given the circumstances and the ease with which CTCs can be obtained, necessitating further identification measures. The Court noted the glaring difference in signatures between the original mortgage and the discharge, which respondent failed to notice due to his carelessness. On the issue of the penalty: Considering the violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court deemed it appropriate to revoke respondent's notarial commission, disqualify him from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years, and suspend him from the practice of law for one (1) year. This penalty reflects the gravity of his negligence and its impact on the integrity of notarial acts and public trust.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must observe utmost care in performing duties, including verifying the identity of persons appearing before them, to maintain public trust in notarial documents. Failure to do so constitutes gross negligence and a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.