Sicat v. Ariola
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arturo L. Sicat charged respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr. with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for allegedly committing fraud, deceit, and falsehood in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Juanito C. Benitez on January 4, 2001, when Benitez had already died on October 25, 2000. The SPA was used to encash a check amounting to P3,700,000.00 issued by the Municipality of Cainta for architectural and engineering designs for a housing project. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP found the respondent guilty and recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for one year. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the IBP's findings and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr. committed gross misconduct in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by a deceased person. Whether the defense that the SPA was superfluous and unnecessary exonerates the respondent from accountability. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is sufficient.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr. is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr. committed gross misconduct in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by a deceased person: The Court found that the respondent never disputed the accusation that he notarized the SPA on January 4, 2001, nor the fact that Benitez was already dead on that date. His act constituted a serious breach of his sacred obligation under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and officer of the court, his duty was to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. The Court emphasized that lawyers commissioned as notaries public must not authenticate documents unless the signatories personally appeared before them and acknowledged the instrument as their free and voluntary act. Notarization is not a routinary act; it converts a private document into a public instrument, and the respondent's act of lying and perpetuating an untruthful statement undermined public confidence in notarized documents. On Whether the defense that the SPA was superfluous and unnecessary exonerates the respondent from accountability: The Court ruled that the respondent's defense that the SPA was superfluous and unnecessary did not exonerate him. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened a cherished tenet of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of all notarial acts. As Municipal Administrator, he had a great responsibility not only as a notary public but also as a public officer. His conscious performance of an act that would deceive the public and the Municipality of Cainta caused disservice to his constituents. Without the fraudulent SPA, the parties involved could not have encashed the P3,700,000.00 check and foisted a spurious contract upon the public, to the prejudice of the Municipality. On Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is sufficient: The Court found the penalty recommended by the IBP (revocation of notarial commission and one-year suspension) to be too light. Considering the gravity of the respondent's misconduct, which involved falsification of a public document and deceit against the government, the Court deemed disbarment to be the appropriate penalty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public who notarizes a document purportedly executed by a deceased person commits gross misconduct, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, and warrants disbarment.