Isenhardt v. Real
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Nesa G. Isenhardt against Atty. Leonardo M. Real. The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on September 14, 2000, which purportedly authorized her brother to mortgage her Antipolo City property. Crucially, the complainant asserted she never appeared before the respondent on that date, as she was in Germany at the time. This alleged improper notarization led to the mortgage and subsequent foreclosure of her property by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on September 9, 2004. After proceedings, the IBP Board of Governors, adopting the Investigating Commissioner's report, found the respondent guilty of gross negligence as a notary public. They recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from reappointment as a notary public. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP Board of Governors on December 11, 2009. The Petition: The Supreme Court sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The Court found that the respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the SPA without the complainant's personal appearance. Documentary evidence, including the complainant's German passport and a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation certification, confirmed her absence from the Philippines on the date of notarization. Furthermore, the respondent's claim that the complainant presented a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was contradicted by the TCT's transfer date. The Court also addressed the prescription issue, ruling that the two-year period should be counted from the discovery of the misconduct, not the act itself. The respondent's actions were deemed unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, undermining public confidence in notarized documents.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real committed gross negligence as a notary public by notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of the complainant. Whether the complaint for disbarment had prescribed, considering the discovery of the professional misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The notarial commission of respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real was revoked. He was disqualified from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years and suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately. He was warned that repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross negligence as a notary public: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of the complainant. A notary public's duty is to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act, which requires personal appearance. Public Act No. 2103 and Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 mandate the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public. The complainant's documentary evidence, including her passport and BID certification, conclusively showed she was not in the Philippines on the date of notarization, negating respondent's claim of her appearance. Furthermore, the respondent's assertion that the complainant presented the TCT was also disproven, as ownership of the property was transferred to her only after the alleged notarization date. The Court emphasized that notarized documents are entitled to full faith and credit, and notaries public must strictly observe the required formalities to maintain public confidence. The fact that the SPA was not used for its intended purpose or that the property was later sold does not absolve the respondent from the offense of notarizing a spurious document. On the issue of prescription: The Court agreed with the IBP that the prescriptive period should be construed as two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct, not from the date of the commission of the act. This interpretation prevents injustice to parties who may discover the misconduct much later. In this case, the complaint was filed more than three years after the notarization, but it was only after the property was foreclosed that the complainant discovered the fraudulent SPA. To rule otherwise would allow such misconduct to go unpunished simply because the discovery was delayed. The Court reiterated that the duties of a notary public are impressed with public interest and are not merely ministerial acts.
Main Doctrine
A notary public commits gross negligence and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the parties, as this undermines public confidence in notarized documents. The prescriptive period for filing a disbarment complaint should be construed as two years from the discovery of the misconduct.