Serzo v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Zenaida Gonzales Serzo filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 28, 2000, covering a 7,500 square meter land. The purported seller was Neybardo Gonzales, who had died on October 16, 2000, prior to the execution of the deed. The deed also bore the marital consent of Gonzales' wife, Maura Villarina, who had also long been deceased. The deed was signed by Amelia Gonzales Laureno as "AGLaureno" on behalf of her mother, and by Yolanda dela Cruz as vendee, with Eufemia Gonzales and Redentor Panguito as witnesses. The notarization of this deed led to a criminal charge for falsification of public document against Amelia Gonzales Laureno, Yolanda dela Cruz, and the witnesses. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, after reviewing the parties' position papers, forwarded its findings to the Supreme Court. The IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, finding respondent guilty of negligence in his duty as a notary public for failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him. The IBP rejected respondent's claim that he was misled, noting that respondent had previously notarized documents for the deceased Gonzales. The Petition: The disbarment complaint was filed before the Supreme Court, seeking to hold respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores accountable for his actions in notarizing the fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public by notarizing a document for a deceased person. Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to properly identify the vendor and undermining public confidence in notarial documents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well-taken. The Court held that respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public by failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him. Consequently, his notarial commission, if still extant, was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. He was also suspended from the practice of law for two years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The Court found respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores guilty of negligence. By his own admission, the parties to the Deed of Absolute Sale had "previous records of instruments and documents" which he had notarized, implying he should have known the person of the vendor, Neybardo Gonzales. However, he readily notarized the document despite Gonzales having already died. Respondent's excuse that "the person of the VENDOR may have not been disclosed to [him] and instead confused [him] with another person" was deemed a betrayal of his responsibilities as a notary public and a lawyer. On the issue of violation of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring notaries public to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. By his act, respondent undermined public confidence in notarial documents and breached Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which enjoins a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Therefore, respondent must be faulted for his actions.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must observe utmost care in verifying the identity of parties appearing before him; failure to do so constitutes negligence and a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, undermining public confidence in notarial documents.