Tan v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Tan Tiong Bio purchased parcels of land from Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. (FEGDI) and Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI). He executed Deed of Sale No. 1108 (Deed 1108) with Alice Odchigue-Bondoc, FEPI's authorized representative. Complainant later filed an estafa case against FEGDI/FEPI. In connection with the estafa case, Bondoc executed a counter-affidavit stating she had not personally met or transacted with the complainant regarding the sale or the execution of Deed 1108, admitting they signed the deed at different times and places. Procedural History: Based on Bondoc's statements, complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales, alleging that Gonzales notarized Deed 1108 outside his notarial territory and without requiring the personal presence of the signatories. Respondent admitted notarizing documents in Pasig City while his commission was for Quezon City, but argued that parties need not sign and acknowledge in each other's presence, and that simultaneous appearance is not required by law. The Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent be held liable for notarizing outside his commission but dismissed the charge regarding personal appearance. The IBP Board of Discipline approved this recommendation. The Petition: The complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for alleged violations of the Notarial Law and his lawyer's oath.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales committed malpractice by notarizing Deed of Absolute Sale No. 1108 outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission. Whether respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales committed malpractice by notarizing Deed of Absolute Sale No. 1108 without requiring the personal appearance of the signatories thereto at the same time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales is PERMANENTLY BARRED from being commissioned as a Notary Public and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. The Court found him liable for notarizing a document outside the territorial limits of his notarial commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing outside the territorial jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the finding that respondent violated the injunction against notarizing a document outside the area covered by his commission. Respondent admitted that his notarial commission was for Quezon City from 1996 to 2001, the period within which Deed 1108 was notarized. However, the document was notarized in Pasig City. He further admitted notarizing hundreds of documents in Pasig City during the period his commission was only for Quezon City. The Court held that this act constitutes malpractice of law and falsification, a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Notarization is an act invested with substantive public interest, requiring qualified and authorized individuals. On the issue of personal appearance of signatories: The Court agreed with the Investigating Commissioner that the complainant failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent notarized the deed without the complainant's presence to acknowledge its due execution. As a notarized document, Deed 1108 is presumed to be regular. The Court found Ms. Bondoc's declaration in her counter-affidavit insufficient to overturn this presumption. Her statement that she had not personally met buyers did not prove that the parties did not appear before the notary public to acknowledge the contract's execution. The Court noted that the Notarial Law is silent on whether parties must be present simultaneously when acknowledging a deed's due execution, and respondent's practice of requiring personal appearance, even if at different times, was not inherently violative of the law.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document outside the territorial limits of his notarial commission commits malpractice and falsification, violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. While the law does not require simultaneous appearance of parties for notarization, notarizing outside the authorized territory is a breach of duty.