Gonzales v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Marina C. Gonzales against Atty. Calixto B. Ramos. The complainant alleges that respondent misconducted himself in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale concerning a property in Paranaque City. The deed, purportedly signed by complainant and her husband, was used to transfer title to a third party. Complainant asserts she and her husband never appeared before respondent to acknowledge the deed. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent lawyer countered that the complainant's husband presented the deed and later brought it back with the complainant's signature, which respondent, after comparing it with other documents, notarized. The respondent admitted that the complainant did not personally appear before him to affirm her signature. The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a suspension of three to six months for the respondent and suspension of his notarial commission for six months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but modified the recommendation to a six-month suspension of the respondent's commission as notary public, with a warning. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case following the IBP's resolution. The Court emphasized the substantive public interest in notarization and the duty of a notary public to ensure the personal appearance and acknowledgment of signatories. The respondent's admission of the complainant's non-appearance and his method of verifying her signature by comparison, rather than personal acknowledgment, were found to be a breach of notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court ultimately revoked respondent's notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Calixto B. Ramos breached his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Calixto B. Ramos guilty of breaching the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year. He was also warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the breach of duties as a notary public and lawyer: The Court held that notarization is not a mere routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. A notary public's primary function is to authenticate documents, giving them the force of evidence and making them admissible without further proof of authenticity. By affixing his notarial seal, the respondent converted a private document into a public one, which is entitled to full faith and credit. The respondent's admission that the complainant did not personally appear before him to affirm the genuineness of her signature violated the basic requirements of notarization. The acknowledgment clause in the deed explicitly states that the parties personally appeared and acknowledged the same as their free and voluntary act. The respondent's act of comparing signatures on file instead of requiring personal appearance fell short of the required accuracy and fidelity. This conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities, as courts and the public accord conclusiveness to notarized documents. Therefore, the respondent clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence and comply with the mandates of the law. Furthermore, by notarizing the deed despite the non-appearance of a signatory, the respondent breached the Code of Professional Responsibility, engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and committing falsehood by misleading the court. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court found the penalty recommended by the IBP to be in full accord with recent jurisprudence. Citing previous cases such as Bon v. Ziga, Serzo v. Flores, Zaballero v. Montalvan, and Tabas v. Mangibin, the Court noted that in similar offenses, the revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment were deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Court not only revoked the notarial commission but also suspended the erring lawyers from the practice of law, aligning with the severity required for such breaches of duty.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must personally ascertain the identity and presence of the parties executing a document. Notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public one entitled to full faith and credit.