Agbulos v. Viray
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Patrocinio V. Agbulos filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray for allegedly notarizing a falsified Affidavit of Non-Tenancy. Agbulos claimed she did not execute the affidavit, that the signature and Community Tax Certificate (CTC) presented were not hers, and that the document facilitated the illegal transfer of her property to Rolando Dollente. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. After hearings and submission of position papers, the IBP Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, suspending Atty. Viray for one month as a lawyer. A motion for reconsideration was denied, and a subsequent resolution modified the penalty, suspending him as a lawyer for one month and as a Notary Public for six months. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court following the IBP's findings and recommended penalties. The Court reviewed the respondent's admitted failure to ensure the affiant's personal appearance and proper identification, violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court found that the respondent's actions, including preparing the document and accepting a CTC not belonging to the affiant, constituted a serious breach of his duties, leading to a revised penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing an affidavit without the personal appearance of the affiant and proper identification. Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of notarial practice and professional responsibility: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP, holding that respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule mandates the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public at the time of notarization and requires the notary to identify the signatory through competent evidence of identity. Respondent admitted to notarizing the subject affidavit without the affiant's personal appearance, relying solely on the assurance of his client, Rolando Dollente. He presented a CTC as identification, which is not considered competent evidence of identity under the Rules, and failed to ascertain the genuineness of the signature, which turned out to be a forgery. The Court emphasized that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the person who signed it is the same person who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. This requirement is crucial for the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. The Court reiterated the significant role of a notary public, stating that notarization is not a mere routine act but is invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. The failure to observe these basic requirements undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. Respondent's actions not only caused damage to those directly affected but also degraded the function of notarization. As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is bound by his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and do no falsehood, and to discharge his duties with fidelity, as these duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. The Court found that respondent allowed the use of a CTC by someone who did not own it and became an instrument of fraud, thereby failing to discharge his duties as a notary public with the required diligence and integrity. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court found the penalty recommended by the IBP insufficient, considering that respondent not only notarized the document without the affiant's personal appearance and proper identification but also prepared the document himself. The Court noted that based on existing jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his duties is typically meted penalties including revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year. Therefore, the Court increased the penalty to one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his incumbent commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, emphasizing that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the affiant and verify their identity using competent evidence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.