Santuyo v. Hidalgo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo filed a verified complaint-affidavit against Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo for serious misconduct and dishonesty, alleging breach of his lawyer's oath and the notarial law. Complainants averred that a deed of sale they purchased in December 1991 was notarized by respondent and entered in his notarial register. Years later, during a dispute over the land's ownership, an affidavit by respondent denying the authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale was presented, claiming his notarial signature was forged and that the spouses had forged it. Complainants argued that the deed had all legal formalities of a duly notarized document, including respondent's dry seal, and that they, not being learned in technicalities, could not have forged his signature or seal. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP noted differences between respondent's alleged forged signature and his other signatures but ruled that respondent was negligent for allowing office secretaries to perform his notarial functions and safekeep his seal and register. The IBP recommended revoking his commission or disqualifying him from appointment for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence. It noted that complainants did not categorically state they appeared before respondent for notarization, only that his signature appeared on the document. They also lacked personal knowledge of who affixed respondent's signature. Furthermore, complainants did not refute respondent's contention that he met Benjamin Santuyo only six years after the alleged notarization, a fact corroborated by an affidavit stating Editha Santuyo had to arrange the meeting. The Court also considered respondent's claim that he was on vacation at the time of the alleged notarization and suspected a secretary, with senior lawyers' concurrence, notarized the document.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the complainants appeared before the respondent to have the deed of sale notarized.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public. He was suspended from his commission as a notary public for two years, or if not commissioned, disqualified from appointment as a notary public for two years from the finality of the resolution, with a warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in the performance of duties as a notary public: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding of negligence. The Court emphasized that the responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, requiring discretion and caution. Respondent was found negligent for wholly entrusting the preparation and mechanics of notarization to his secretaries. This practice created a possibility that even respondent's signature could be affixed by someone else, as alleged in this case. Furthermore, respondent was negligent in allowing office secretaries to make entries in his notarial registry, which should have been done and kept by him alone. He should not have relied on others for these crucial duties. The Court reiterated that a notary public must ensure that parties personally appear before him and acknowledge the document, which respondent failed to do or at least failed to prove he did. On the issue of whether the complainants appeared before the respondent: The Court noted that the complainants did not categorically state that they appeared before respondent for the notarization of the deed of sale. Their assertion was limited to the fact that respondent's signature appeared on the document, without personal knowledge of who affixed it. This lack of clear testimony regarding their personal appearance and acknowledgment before the notary public weakened their claim. Moreover, the respondent's assertion that he met complainant Benjamin Santuyo only six years after the alleged notarization, corroborated by an affidavit, further cast doubt on the complainants' claim of proper notarization.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is negligent in the performance of his duties if he allows office secretaries to perform his notarial functions, including the safekeeping of his notarial dry seal and notarial register, and if he does not ensure the personal appearance and acknowledgment of parties before him.