Bautista v. Bernabe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Victorina Bautista filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for malpractice and unethical conduct. The complaint alleged that respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay on January 3, 1998, purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainant's mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Complainant asserted that her mother could not have executed the affidavit as she had been dead since January 28, 1961. Procedural History: Respondent denied falsifying the document, claiming he had no knowledge of Basilia's death and that a certain Pronebo, allegedly Basilia's son-in-law, signed above Basilia's name with the notation "by." Subsequently, complainant filed an affidavit of desistance, stating she was misled into filing the complaint. The Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for one month, revocation of notarial commission, and a one-year bar from reappointment. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a one-year suspension, revocation of commission, and a two-year disqualification from reappointment. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe committed malpractice and unethical conduct by notarizing a document where one of the affiants was already deceased. Whether the complainant's affidavit of desistance exonerates the respondent from the charges.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP. Respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe's notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year. The Court also directed the investigation of another lawyer, Atty. Carlitos C. Villarin, for a similar alleged infraction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malpractice and unethical conduct: The Court held that the records sufficiently established that Basilia de la Cruz was already dead when the joint affidavit was prepared on January 3, 1998. Respondent's alleged lack of knowledge of Basilia's death did not excuse him, as it was his duty to require the personal appearance of the affiant before affixing his notarial seal and signature. A notary public must ensure that the persons signing the document are the same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him. The presence of the parties allows the notary to verify the genuineness of the signatures. Respondent's act of notarizing the document in the absence of one of the affiants violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. By affixing his signature and seal, he implied that Basilia personally appeared, which was untrue. This conduct is dangerous given the conclusiveness accorded to notarized documents. Respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence and comply with legal mandates. Furthermore, allowing Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia was improper; acts of affiants cannot be delegated, and they must personally swear to the document. If a representative signs, their name should appear as the executor, and they must personally appear before the notary. On the effect of the affidavit of desistance: The Court ruled that a complainant's desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate the respondent or terminate administrative proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings are not civil actions but are undertaken for the public welfare to preserve the integrity of the courts and ensure that only fit persons practice law. The complainant is not a party with a private interest, and the proceedings can continue regardless of their interest, provided the charge of deceit or grossly immoral conduct is proven by the record. The attorney is accountable to the Court for their conduct as an officer of the court.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must require the personal appearance of the affiant before notarizing a document. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, regardless of the affiant's alleged lack of knowledge of the affiant's death or the subsequent withdrawal of the complaint.