Lopena v. Cabatos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos (respondent) was administratively charged by Judge Gervacio A. Lopena (complainant) with serious breach of professional ethics and grave misconduct. The charges stemmed from two incidents: (1) respondent allegedly falsified a Deed of Donation by notarizing it on June 24, 1981, when the donor, Crispina Panis, had died on January 15, 1981; and (2) respondent, with his followers, held a parade/rally on September 21, 1984, against the complainant, who had convicted respondent's relatives and denied their probation. Procedural History: The respondent submitted a comment claiming he did not recognize the donor as he had been away since 1958, and was led to believe by Gregorio Ricafort that the person was Crispina Panis. He also stated he was facing a criminal indictment for reckless imprudence resulting in falsification. Regarding the rally, he claimed it was a protest against the complainant's alleged bias. The complainant countered that respondent's father, a witness to the deed, was related to Panis and knew her, making respondent's claim of ignorance incredible. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The proceedings were lengthy and marked by delays, including the death of complainant's witnesses. Both parties eventually moved for a judgment on the pleadings. The IBP Commissioner noted the complainant's failure to substantiate charges but pointed out respondent's lack of diligence as a notary public. The IBP adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report, recommending dismissal of the disbarment charge but a reprimand for lack of diligence, with a warning. The Supreme Court, however, found the revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification for one year to be in order for the notarization issue, while the rally charge was unsubstantiated. The Petition: The administrative case was filed against respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos for serious breach of professional ethics and grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos committed a serious breach of professional ethics and grave misconduct by notarizing a Deed of Donation purportedly executed by a deceased person. Whether the respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos showed grave disrespect to the courts and the administration of justice by holding a parade/rally against the complainant judge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos, if still existing, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He was also warned that a similar violation would be dealt with more severely. The charge of showing grave disrespect to the courts and the administration of justice was dismissed for insufficient substantiation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of notarizing a deed of donation from a deceased person: The Court found that respondent Atty. Cabatos failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of a Notary Public. He admitted that he did not exert any effort to find out if the person who acknowledged the Deed of Donation was indeed Crispina Panis, relying solely on the assurance of Mr. Gregorio Ricafort. The Court reiterated that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, including verifying the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and ascertaining that the document is the party's free act and deed. The Court emphasized that the respondent's exoneration from a criminal case does not absolve him from administrative liability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent's claim that the signatory was the daughter of Crispina Panis, instructed by Ricafort to sign, implied that the document was already signed when presented for notarization, which is contrary to the notary's duty. The Court concluded that the respondent failed to faithfully discharge his sacred duties as a notary public, warranting the revocation of his commission and disqualification. On the charge of showing grave disrespect to the courts and the administration of justice: The Court found that this charge was not sufficiently substantiated. The respondent's alleged act of holding a parade/rally and imputing bias to the complainant judge was not proven with adequate evidence. Therefore, this specific charge was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is held to a graver responsibility due to their solemn oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Failure to exercise utmost care and diligence in verifying the identity of signatories and the genuineness of their signatures constitutes a breach of professional ethics, warranting disciplinary action.