Lustestica v. Bernabe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a Deed of Donation on August 5, 1994. The document was purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero as donors. However, evidence established that Benvenuto had died on September 7, 1987, and Cornelia had died on September 24, 1984. Consequently, both donors were already deceased for several years at the time the respondent certified their personal appearance before him. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline investigated the matter and found that the respondent failed to record residence certificates in the acknowledgment, which is a mandatory requirement under the Notarial Law. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public. This recommendation noted that the respondent had a prior administrative record in A.C. No. 6963, where he was also suspended for notarial misconduct. The Petition: The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, arguing that the recommended penalty was too harsh. He claimed he had already served the penalties from his previous case and the current one by voluntarily refraining from the practice of law since the IBP's initial resolution. He requested a clearance from the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to resume his legal practice and to be commissioned as a notary public once more.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Bernabe is liable for gross negligence and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing a document despite the non-appearance and prior death of the donors. Whether the respondent's status as a repeat offender warrants the penalty of disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe liable for gross negligence and deceitful attestation. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law, his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys, and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the respondent's actions constituted a grave violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. Atty. Bernabe's acknowledgment contained unfilled spaces for residence certificates, which clearly established that he did not perform the legal duty of verifying the parties' identities. By falsely representing that the deceased donors appeared before him and were 'known to him,' he engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct prohibited by Rule 1.01 of the CPR. The Court emphasized that such negligence undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents, which are supposed to be entitled to full faith and credit. On Issue 2: The Court determined that the IBP's recommended penalty was insufficient given the respondent's history of misconduct. In a previous case, Bautista v. Bernabe (A.C. No. 6963), the respondent had already been suspended for one year for notarizing a document in the absence of an affiant. Applying the precedents of Maligsa v. Cabanting and Flores v. Chua, the Court ruled that a lawyer who repeatedly fails to uphold the integrity of the legal profession through notarial malpractice must be dealt with more severely. Although the respondent may not have directly participated in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his gross negligence facilitated the fraud. Therefore, to maintain the high standards of the bar, the Court ordered his disbarment and perpetual disqualification from notarial duties.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is duty-bound to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed the document. Failure to verify the identity of the parties, or notarizing a document in the absence of the affiants, constitutes gross negligence and a violation of the lawyer's oath to uphold the law. When such negligence facilitates the use of forged documents involving deceased individuals, and the lawyer is a repeat offender, the penalty of disbarment is commensurate with the breach of public trust.