Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Grace Dela Cruz-Sillano filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan, accusing him of conspiring to forge a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The SPA allegedly authorized Ronaldo F. Apostol to claim insurance benefits from the Insular Life Assurance Company Ltd., on behalf of the complainant's deceased mother, Zenaida A. Dela Cruz. The complainant asserted that her mother's signature was forged, and the SPA was notarized on March 15, 1999, while the affiant was bedridden in the United States due to lung cancer, and subsequently died on May 27, 1999, also in the United States. The complainant alleged that the respondent, in conspiracy with Apostol, falsified the SPA and notarized it, enabling them to encash a check for P71,033.53 to her prejudice. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found the respondent guilty of notarizing the SPA in the absence of the affiant. The IBP Commissioner recommended a 30-day suspension from the practice of law and a one-year bar from acting as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for one year. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP Board of Governors. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's findings and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney in the absence of the affiant. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the respondent's culpability for the alleged forgery and notarization in the absence of the affiant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and adopted its recommendations. The Court found respondent Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his incumbent notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing a Special Power of Attorney in the absence of the affiant: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that the respondent violated Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Notarial Law) and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The law mandates that a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, which requires the affiant's personal appearance. The Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 further emphasize that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and not personally known or identified by the notary. The respondent's own defense, through the affidavit of Ronaldo F. Apostol and the joint affidavit of his staff, inadvertently proved that the affiant was not present during the notarization. Apostol's affidavit detailed how he convinced the staff to process the notarization without the affiant's presence, and the staff's affidavit admitted to vouching for the grantor's appearance even when they were not present, especially when the notary was out for hearings. The Court stressed that notarization is not a mere formality but a significant act invested with public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public to ensure the genuineness of signatures and the voluntary execution of documents. The respondent's failure to adhere to this fundamental requirement constituted a breach of his professional duty and undermined the integrity of the notarial system. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court held that in administrative cases, facts are deemed established by substantial evidence, which is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion. The respondent did not categorically deny notarizing the SPA in the absence of the affiant, relying instead on technical objections to the admissibility of exhibits. However, the Court found that the evidence presented, including the affidavits of Apostol and the staff, substantially supported the charge that the notarization occurred without the affiant's personal appearance. The respondent's claim of accommodating relatives for free did not absolve him from his professional obligations. The Court reiterated that the adverse consequences of notarizing documents without the affiant's presence far outweigh any perceived convenience, as it opens the door to spurious documents and impersonation. The respondent's actions, therefore, were deemed to have damaged the complainant's rights and degraded the function of notarization, warranting disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the affiant before him to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. Failure to do so violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and undermines public trust in the notarial system.