Social Security Commission v. Corral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Napoleon Corral prepared, notarized, and filed three separate complaints with the Social Security Commission (SSC) Regional Office in Bacolod City for the remittance of unpaid Social Security System (SSS) premiums. The first complaint, filed on April 18, 1986, was on behalf of Hermogenes Bareno; the second, filed on September 10, 1987, was for Domingo N. Panadero; and the third, filed on July 12, 1990, was for Catalino de la Cruz. Upon investigation by the Commission, it was discovered that Bareno had died two years prior to the filing, and Panadero had also been dead long before his complaint was filed. Catalino de la Cruz executed an affidavit stating he had not been to Bacolod City in ten years, did not know the respondent, and never verified the complaint. Procedural History: The Social Security Commission (SSC) filed a Verified Complaint for disbarment on January 25, 1993, and a Supplemental Complaint on May 16, 1994. Respondent argued in his defense that he relied on SSS identification cards and forms presented by individuals claiming to be the complainants and thus could not be faulted for failing to investigate further. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment, which was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVI-2003-175 on September 27, 2003, finding a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission prayed for the respondent's disbarment and the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys, alleging that his act of notarizing documents for deceased or non-appearing persons constituted gross misconduct and unethical practice of law.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Napoleon Corral violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing complaints for individuals who did not personally appear before him, thereby engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, for violating Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Napoleon Corral’s notarial commission, if still extant, is INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED. Respondent is further DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt of copy of this Resolution why he should not be disbarred.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent failed to exercise the utmost diligence required by Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, which mandates that a party to a notarized document must personally appear before the notary. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless or routinary act but is impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy. Respondent's claim that he relied on SSS cards was rejected, as the Court noted that documents like SSS Form E-1 do not prove the identity of the bearer. By certifying that deceased individuals and a person who was never in the locality personally appeared before him, respondent committed a falsehood. This 'jaunty indifference' to the importance of the notarial act breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which proscribes lawyers from engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct. Citing Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, the Court reminded respondent that as a lawyer, he has a graver responsibility to uphold the law and the legal solemnity of the oath.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court underscores that under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. This necessitates the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary. Failure to observe this requirement, particularly when the purported signatories are deceased or deny their participation, constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath to do no falsehood and a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court maintains that notarization is a sacrosanct act dictated by public policy, and any negligence therein undermines public confidence in the integrity of legal documents.