Lee v. Tambago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violating the Notarial Law and legal ethics for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. Complainant alleged that his father, Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the will, and the signatures of the purported witnesses, Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, were forged. The will purportedly bequeathed the decedent's estate to his wife, except for a parcel of land devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee. The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965. Complainant noted that the testator's residence certificate in the acknowledgment was dated January 5, 1962, and the testator's signature differed from his signature in a deed of donation. Complainant also questioned the absence of residence certificates for the witnesses, alleging their signatures were copied from their voters' affidavits. Furthermore, no copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), which had a record of an affidavit by Bartolome Ramirez for the same document number, page, book, and series. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violating the old Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, resolving to suspend respondent for one year, revoke his notarial commission, and disqualify him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's resolution, finding respondent guilty of professional misconduct and affirming the IBP's findings with modification.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago violated the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession by notarizing a spurious last will and testament. Whether the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act regarding the exhibition and notation of residence certificates. Whether the respondent failed to make the proper entries in his notarial register. Whether the respondent's actions warrant disciplinary sanctions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP's finding of guilt with modification. Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code, and the provisions of the old Notarial Law. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Notarial Law and legal ethics: The Court held that a notarial will must strictly comply with legal formalities to ensure its authenticity and prevent fraud. The contested will was void on its face because it was attested by only two witnesses, contrary to the requirement of three or more credible witnesses. Furthermore, the acknowledgment was defective due to the absence of the residence certificates of the witnesses and the use of an old residence certificate for the testator. These omissions by the respondent, as the acknowledging officer, invalidated the will and constituted a breach of his duty to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and notarization. The Court emphasized that these formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, especially considering the evidentiary weight of notarized documents. On the failure to comply with residence certificate requirements: The Court reiterated that the Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act explicitly required notaries public to certify that parties presented their proper residence certificates or were exempt, and to enter the certificate's number, place of issue, and date. Respondent's failure to require the exhibition of current residence certificates from the testator and witnesses, and his allowance of an expired certificate for the testator, were clear breaches of these mandatory provisions. This failure compromised the identity verification and tax payment aspects sought by the law, demonstrating a lack of due diligence on the part of the respondent. On the failure to make proper entries in the notarial register: The Court found that the respondent failed to prove he made the proper entries in his notarial register concerning the notarization of the will. His attempt to present a photocopy of his notarial register as secondary evidence was inadmissible because the original was not shown to be unavailable. The Court noted that the old Notarial Law required specific entries in chronological order, including the nature of the instrument, parties, witnesses, date, and fees. Failure to make these entries is a ground for revocation of a notary's commission. Furthermore, the Court addressed the respondent's reliance on photocopies of his notarial register and a certification from the archives division. It held that photocopies are inadmissible as secondary evidence unless the unavailability of the original is proven. The certification from the archives division, even if admissible, did not squarely prove the fact of entry of the contested will in the respondent's notarial register. Therefore, the respondent's evidence failed to controvert the complainant's assertions regarding the lack of proper documentation. On the sanction to be imposed: The Court found that respondent acted irresponsibly and recklessly in notarizing the will, which seriously compromised its validity. Given the importance and delicate nature of wills, especially when the testator and witnesses are deceased, such carelessness cannot be taken lightly. The Court concluded that respondent's gross violations warranted a suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from reappointment as a notary public, as these sanctions were less severe than disbarment but sufficient to accomplish the desired end of upholding the integrity of the legal profession and the sanctity of notarized documents.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly observe the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act concerning the exhibition and notation of residence certificates upon notarization of documents. Failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct, violating the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Notarial Law, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.