Agagon v. Bustamante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante for malpractice and violation of the lawyer's oath. Respondent acted as Notary Public for a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Dominador Panglao and Alessandro Panglao. However, verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court revealed that the Deed of Sale was not included in the respondent's notarial report. Instead, the notarial entry for Doc. No. 375, Page 76, Book XXXIII, Series of 2000, pertained to an Affidavit executed by Teofilo M. Malapit. Furthermore, the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) used by the parties in the Deed of Sale were found to be fictitious. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of gross negligence as a Notary Public for notarizing a document where affiants lacked valid CTCs and for failing to include the Deed of Sale in his notarial reports. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but modified the penalty. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP's findings but imposed a more appropriate penalty. The Petition: The complainant alleged malpractice and violation of the lawyer's oath by the respondent notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante is guilty of malpractice and violation of the lawyer's oath for gross negligence as a Notary Public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for one year. He was also suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings that respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante was grossly negligent in his duties as a Notary Public. This negligence stemmed from two main acts: first, notarizing a Deed of Sale where the parties presented fictitious or non-existent Community Tax Certificates (CTCs), which the respondent admitted he merely accepted based on dictation without requiring actual exhibition; and second, failing to include this Deed of Sale in his Notarial Reports submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Court emphasized that a notary public has a solemn responsibility to verify the identities of the parties and ensure the legality of the transaction, as notarization converts a private document into a public one, lending it evidentiary weight without further proof of authenticity. Accepting CTC numbers dictated from memory, without requiring actual presentation, constitutes gross negligence and a dereliction of duty, especially considering the public interest attached to notarized documents. Such omissions cast significant doubt on the due execution and authenticity of the Deed of Sale, undermining the integrity of the notarial process and diminishing public confidence, as highlighted in Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas v. Atty. Beradio and Pantoja-Mumar v. Atty. Flores. Consequently, the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Notarial Law, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care in complying with the formalities of their duties, as notarization is not an empty or routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. Failure to require presentation of community tax certificates and to include documents in the notarial report constitutes gross negligence.