Lanuzo v. Bongon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Flocerfida S. Lanuzo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jesus B. Bongon, alleging falsification of public documents and violation of notarial rules. The core of the dispute involves a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 6, 1996, for a parcel of agricultural land. Complainant discovered that this land, previously purchased by her husband, was allegedly sold again by Fernando Nangyo to Librada G. Santos. The second Deed of Sale, notarized by respondent Atty. Bongon, contained the acknowledgment of Primitiva Nangyo, who had passed away six years prior to the notarization date. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Supreme Court on May 17, 2005. Respondent Atty. Bongon filed his Comment on August 12, 2005. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation, and Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco issued a Report and Recommendation on January 4, 2008, finding that the respondent violated notarial law by failing to ensure the personal appearance of the parties, but finding no evidence of conspiracy in the falsification. The IBP Board of Governors approved this report on January 17, 2008, recommending a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Petition: This case came before the Supreme Court as a disbarment complaint initiated by Flocerfida S. Lanuzo against Atty. Jesus B. Bongon. The complaint, treated as a petition for disciplinary action, alleged that Atty. Bongon committed falsification of public documents and violated notarial rules by notarizing a Deed of Sale where one of the signatories, Primitiva Nangyo, was deceased at the time of notarization. The petition sought the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the respondent for his alleged misconduct in the performance of his duties as a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Jesus B. Bongon violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the parties, specifically concerning the Deed of Sale involving Primitiva Nangyo. Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Bongon liable for conspiracy in the falsification of the Deed of Sale, beyond his negligence in notarial duties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. The notarial commission of Atty. Jesus B. Bongon was REVOKED, he was DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, and he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. The charge of conspiracy in falsification was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court emphasized that a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document unless the signatories personally appear before him. This requirement is essential for verifying the genuineness of signatures and ensuring the document is the parties' free act. Atty. Bongon notarized a Deed of Sale in 2004 claiming Primitiva Nangyo appeared before him, despite her death in 1997. Such failure constitutes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Notarization is impressed with public interest, and notaries must observe basic requirements to maintain public confidence. Consequently, the respondent's negligence warranted the revocation of his commission and suspension from the practice of law. On Issue 2: Regarding the allegation of conspiracy to falsify the Deed of Sale, the Court found no sufficient evidence to hold the respondent liable beyond his negligence. The record did not establish that he actively participated in a common design with the vendors or the buyer to commit falsification. The respondent's liability was limited to the administrative violations of the notarial rules. In administrative cases, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, and the complainant failed to bridge the gap between the respondent's negligence and a criminal intent to falsify. Therefore, the respondent was penalized only for his professional misconduct as a notary and a lawyer.
Main Doctrine
Notarization is a duty impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy, transforming a private document into a public one that is entitled to full credit upon its face. Consequently, a notary public must exercise utmost diligence to ensure that the parties acknowledging the document are the same individuals who personally appeared before them. Failure to perform this duty, such as notarizing a deed for a deceased person, undermines public confidence in notarized documents and warrants the revocation of the notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.