Angeles v. Ibañez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, representing the deceased Loreto Angeles, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez for allegedly notarizing an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" on February 18, 1979, without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiants. The complainants denied executing the document or appearing before the respondent. They alleged that the respondent and his relatives were using the document in judicial proceedings to their prejudice. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) investigated the complaint. The respondent contended that the complainants were guilty of forum-shopping, having previously filed a similar complaint (Administrative Case No. 3581) which was dismissed. He admitted notarizing the document but claimed it was done in Cavite, not Manila as stated, and attributed the error to his secretary. He also asserted he had a notarial commission for Cavite and that the sale remained valid despite defects in notarization. The Petition: The complainants accused respondent Atty. Ibañez of professional misconduct for notarizing the document without the presence of the parties and allegedly without a notarial commission.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez committed professional misconduct by notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the affiants. Whether respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez committed professional misconduct by notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without a valid notarial commission.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez guilty of notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the affiants. Accordingly, the Court suspends him from the practice of law for one year, revokes his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective immediately, with a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing in the absence of affiants: The respondent admitted that he relied on the representation of Rosalina Angeles, his confidential secretary, that the signatures on the document were authentic. However, the Court emphasized that lawyers commissioned as notaries public must ensure the personal appearance of the affiants. This is mandated by Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Notarial Law) and Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. The physical presence of the affiants is crucial for the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and confirm that the document is the parties' free act and deed. Notarization is not a mere formality; it converts a private document into a public one, and the public, courts, and administrative agencies must be able to rely on the acknowledgment. The respondent's reliance on his secretary, despite the clear legal requirement, constituted recklessness and a failure to comply with the law, thus constituting professional misconduct. On the issue of notarizing without a valid notarial commission: The certifications submitted by the complainants clearly indicated that respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez did not have any notarial commission for Manila or Cavite on February 18, 1979, when he notarized the document. The respondent failed to provide any proof of his claimed commission for Cavite or of his submission of notarial reports and registers for the period. Although the respondent later submitted documents suggesting he had a commission for Cavite for 1978-1979, the IBP found that he failed to prove this claim during the proceedings. The Court sustained the IBP's finding that the respondent notarized the document without the necessary commission, which is a violation of his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted that the validity of the transaction itself was not the issue in the administrative case, but rather the respondent's conduct in the notarization process.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the affiants before him/her to verify the genuineness of their signatures and that the document is their free act and deed. Failure to comply with this requirement, especially when done without a notarial commission, constitutes professional misconduct.