Dela Cruz v. Zabala
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala with violating his oath as a notary public for allegedly notarizing a fake deed of sale executed by two deceased individuals. Complainant had been retained to finance the filing of a petition for a second duplicate original of OCT No. 4153, which he later purchased. Subsequently, he discovered the property was already registered under a different title. On May 27, 1997, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land covered by OCT No. 4153, purportedly executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro Sumulong in favor of complainant and his wife. Later, Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance against complainant and his wife, using the same deed of sale that was also used in filing a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document and a disbarment case against complainant. Procedural History: Complainant filed this disbarment case against respondent, alleging gross violation of his oath as a notary public for notarizing a document where one of the parties was deceased. Respondent, in his Answer, argued that as a notary, he only needed to ensure the presence of parties and their community tax certificates, and that he had no way of knowing if the persons appearing were poseurs. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a reprimand for violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, dismissing the disbarment aspect for insufficiency of evidence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the recommended penalty. The Petition: This case originated from a Letter-Complaint for Disbarment filed by Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz against Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala before the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Complainant alleged that respondent violated his oath as a notary public by notarizing a fake deed of sale executed by deceased individuals. The complainant sought disciplinary action against the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala was guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP was sufficient.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial commission, if still existing, was REVOKED, and he was DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He was also directed to show cause why he should not be subject to further disciplinary action as a member of the Bar.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross negligence: The Court found that respondent was guilty of gross negligence. Notarization is not a mere routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties to maintain public confidence. In this case, the Deed of Sale was irregular on its face, purportedly executed by co-owners Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales, yet only Pedro Sumulong appeared. Furthermore, a copy of the title was not attached to the Deed of Sale when presented for notarization. These circumstances should have alerted the respondent. The Court emphasized that given the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained, respondent should have been more vigilant in ascertaining the identities of the persons appearing before him. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public. On the sufficiency of the penalty: The Court disagreed with the IBP's recommendation of a mere reprimand. The Court held that at least the respondent's commission as a Notary Public should be revoked, and he should be disqualified from being commissioned as such for two years. The Court stressed that a notary public's function includes guarding against illegal or immoral arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal, the respondent proclaimed that the parties personally appeared, were known to him, were the same persons who executed the instrument, that he inquired into the voluntariness of the execution, and that they acknowledged it as their free act. His failure to do so, despite red flags, demonstrated a serious breach of his duties, warranting a more severe penalty than a reprimand.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's failure to exercise utmost care in verifying the identities of parties and the voluntariness of their acts in executing a document, especially when circumstances should have alerted them, constitutes gross negligence in the performance of their duty, warranting revocation of their notarial commission and disqualification from future commissions.