Linco v. Lacebal
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the alleged improper notarization of a deed of donation by respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal. Complainant Atty. Florita S. Linco, widow of the registered owner Atty. Alberto Linco, claims that the deed of donation, purportedly executed by her deceased husband in favor of their minor son, Alexander David T. Linco, was notarized by respondent. This deed, by virtue of its subsequent registration, led to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new title in the name of the minor, thereby allegedly violating the rights of the complainant and her children over the property. 2. Procedural History: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on June 6, 2005. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant, after reviewing the case and the respondent's motion for reconsideration, recommended that the complaint be ripe for judicial adjudication. 3. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court through the respondent's petition for review of the IBP's resolution. The core of the complaint, and subsequently the Supreme Court's review, centers on the respondent's alleged violation of notarial procedure and professional ethics. Specifically, the respondent notarized a deed of donation on July 30, 2003, a day after the donor, Atty. Alberto Linco, had already passed away on July 29, 2003. The respondent admitted to knowing of the donor's death prior to notarization, yet proceeded, claiming it was a commitment to a fellow lawyer and that the deed was signed in his presence on July 8, 2003. The Supreme Court considered whether this act constituted a false statement and a violation of the Attorney's Oath and the Notarial Law, leading to the imposition of sanctions.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal breached his duties as a notary public and a lawyer by notarizing a deed of donation after the death of the donor. Whether the respondent's act of attesting to the personal appearance of the deceased donor on the date of notarization constitutes a false statement and a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP. The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal is guilty of breaching the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately. He was warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of breach of duties as a notary public and lawyer: The Court found no question as to respondent's guilt. The records sufficiently established that Atty. Linco was already dead when respondent notarized the deed of donation on July 30, 2003. Respondent admitted knowing that Atty. Linco died the day before notarization. The Court noted that the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when respondent was allegedly asked to notarize the deed, should have alerted him. However, respondent chose to ignore basic notarial procedure to accommodate a colleague. The fact that the donor had previously appeared before him did not justify notarizing the document in the affiant's absence on the day of notarization. The Court reiterated that faithful observance of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Notaries public must not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before them to attest to its contents and truth. This responsibility is more pronounced for lawyers, who have sworn to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Respondent's failure damaged the complainant's rights and undermined the integrity of the notarial system. On the issue of false statement and violation of law: The Court held that respondent made a false statement in the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation, attesting that Atty. Linco personally appeared before him on July 30, 2003, when Atty. Linco had died on July 29, 2003. This act clearly violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. Notaries public must observe basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence. A notary public's failure to perform duties, as in this case, warrants the same penalty imposed in Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon, which included revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer, commits a breach of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document after the death of the signatory, attesting that the signatory personally appeared when this is factually impossible, thereby making a false statement and undermining public trust in notarized documents.