Gemina v. Madamba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rizalina L. Gemina alleged that respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba, as a notary public, notarized several documents pertaining to parcels of land owned by her deceased predecessor. These documents, including a Waiver of Rights & Interest, Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee, Deed of Adjudication & Sale, Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, and Deed of Absolute Sale, were allegedly notarized without the presence of the affiants or with forged signatures. The complainant discovered discrepancies in the respondent's Notarial Register, including documents being cancelled without reason, documents not submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), and entries in the register not corresponding to the actual documents. Procedural History: The complainant filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Madamba for deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence, praying for his suspension or disbarment. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, adopting the recommendation of Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the IBP's findings. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba is guilty of deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence in his capacity as a notary public. Whether the respondent's age and sickness can excuse him from performing his duties as a notary public.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still existing, is REVOKED. He is further SUSPENDED indefinitely from reappointment as a Notary Public. Considering the seriousness of his violations, he deserves disbarment from the practice of law, but taking into account his old age and sickness, the Court, for humanitarian reasons, orders his SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba is guilty of deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence in his capacity as a notary public: The Court found the respondent guilty. The respondent admitted to notarizing documents without reading them and without ascertaining their nature, completely entrusting the maintenance of his Notarial Register to his secretary. This led to inaccuracies in the entries and failure to submit required documents to the OCC. Furthermore, the respondent notarized a Waiver of Rights and Interests without requiring proof of identity, relying on assurances, and it was later shown that the signature was forged. The respondent's own admissions during the hearing, where he acknowledged notarizing documents based on his secretary's preparation and entries, confirmed his dereliction of duty. The Court emphasized that a notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness, and should not be part of illegal transactions. On the issue of whether the respondent's age and sickness can excuse him from performing his duties as a notary public: The Court ruled that the respondent's age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the serious lapses he committed. While the respondent claimed to be 82 years old and insulin-dependent, and that his secretary handled the preparation and entries in his Notarial Register, the Court held that a lawyer cannot escape liability by blaming his secretary. The lawyer himself is accountable for these misdeeds. The Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty or routinary act, and a notary public must perform his duties with diligence and integrity, regardless of personal circumstances. The failure to comply with the Notarial Law and the Rules on Notarial Practice constitutes a violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who, as a notary public, fails to perform his duties with the required diligence, such as failing to make proper entries in his notarial register, failing to require the presence of principals, and failing to identify principals by competent evidence, is guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and may face revocation of his commission, suspension, or disbarment.