Follosco v. Mateo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Vicente and Hermilina Follosco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo, a notary public, alleging that signatures on several documents related to a mortgage of their property were forged. These documents were notarized by respondent Mateo. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and later referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). A disbarment complaint based on the same acts was also filed. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent Mateo guilty of negligence and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors approved the report but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension of his notarial commission and a reprimand. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the findings of the IBP and the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rafael Mateo was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Rafael Mateo guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for three (3) months, revoked his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, with a stern warning against repetition of similar conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The Court held that respondent Mateo failed to exercise utmost diligence as a notary public. Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, explicitly requires that the party acknowledging an instrument must appear before the notary public. Respondent admitted to notarizing the documents without the affiants personally appearing before him, claiming they were already prepared and executed and that he was familiar with the complainants. However, the Court emphasized that a notary public cannot be relieved of the consequences of his reckless failure to comply with the law, regardless of his claim of good faith. The act of notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and notaries public must ensure the genuineness of signatures and that the document is the party's free act and deed. The Court noted that the respondent's failure to perform this basic requirement undermined the integrity of notarization and public faith in public documents. The Court reiterated that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very persons who executed and personally appeared before him. The respondent's actions were deemed a failure to discharge his powers and duties with accuracy and fidelity, which are impressed with public interest. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court agreed with the IBP's finding of negligence but found the recommended penalty insufficient. Considering the gravity of the offense, which involved the potential falsification of documents and damage to the complainants' rights, the Court deemed it necessary to impose a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the respondent's professional indiscretion. The Court stated that as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, the respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties of his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Therefore, the Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for three months, revocation of his notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, in addition to a stern warning.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer commissioned as such, must exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duties, particularly in ensuring the personal appearance of affiants and verifying their identities and signatures, to maintain public trust in notarized documents. Failure to do so constitutes negligence and can lead to suspension and revocation of notarial commission.