Legaspi v. Landrito
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jofel P. Legaspi charged Attys. Ramon Landrito and Magno Toribio with Grave Misconduct, Grave Dishonesty, Use of Falsified Document, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar. The charges stemmed from the alleged falsification of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated December 27, 2005, which was used as basis for an ejectment suit filed by Atty. Landrito before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Legaspi alleged that the SPA, purportedly executed by Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon, was falsified because they were residing in the United States and Canada, respectively, and could not have personally appeared before Atty. Toribio for notarization. They also did not return to the Philippines in 2005 and were not Filipino citizens. Atty. Toribio allegedly notarized the SPA without requiring the presence of the principals. Procedural History: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Trece Martires City initially issued a Resolution on April 18, 2006. Atty. Toribio commented, stating that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon attested to the authenticity of their signatures and voluntary execution of the SPA. Atty. Landrito claimed no participation in the SPA's execution. Legaspi countered that the City Prosecutor's Resolution was not final due to a Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered re-investigation, and that the affidavits of Madonna and Rafael only proved they were not in the country during notarization. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Atty. Landrito later informed the IBP that the DOJ had affirmed the City Prosecutor's findings. The IBP found Atty. Toribio guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the rules on notarial practice, recommending a six-month suspension. The IBP recommended dismissal of the case against Atty. Landrito for lack of merit. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Magno Toribio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether Atty. Ramon Landrito participated in the falsification or use of the falsified SPA with knowledge of its defect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Magno Toribio guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, with a stern warning against repetition, and his notarial commission, if any, was also suspended for six (6) months. The case against Atty. Ramon Landrito was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Magno Toribio's violation: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that Atty. Toribio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. It was established that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon could not have personally appeared before Atty. Toribio on December 27, 2005, as they were not in the Philippines at that time, as evidenced by certifications from the Bureau of Immigration. Their affidavits, executed in the United States and Canada, confirmed they signed the SPA in their respective residences abroad. Although the SPA was voluntarily executed by the principals, it was notarized in their absence, which is a clear violation of notarial practice rules. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public, especially lawyers, to maintain public confidence. The responsibility is graver for lawyers due to their oath to obey laws and do no falsehood. On the issue of Atty. Ramon Landrito's participation: The Court agreed with the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the case against Atty. Landrito. The records showed no indication that he participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA. Furthermore, there was no basis to conclude that he was aware of any defect in the notarization of the SPA and knowingly introduced it as evidence. Therefore, the complaint against him was dismissed for lack of merit.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer, must exercise utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties, particularly the personal appearance of the signatories, to maintain public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice.