Jandoquile v. Revilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. for notarizing a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline is the sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife, Herizalyn is the wife's sister-in-law, and Elmer is the Brosas family's live-in houseboy. Jandoquile alleged that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was disqualified to perform the notarial act under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and that he failed to require the affiants to present valid identification cards. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, finding the facts undisputed, resolved the case directly instead of referring it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. The Petition: The disbarment complaint sought the disbarment of Atty. Revilla, Jr. for violating notarial rules.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document involving relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Whether Atty. Revilla, Jr. committed an offense by not requiring the affiants to present valid identification cards.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if presently commissioned, for a period of three (3) months. He was also directed to inform the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has lapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (violation of disqualification rule): The Court found Atty. Revilla, Jr. to have violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This provision clearly disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the principal is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. In this case, two of the affiants, Heneraline Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, were relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity to Atty. Revilla, Jr. (sister of his wife and wife's sister-in-law, respectively). Given the clear provision, it behooved Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document. His claim that he acted more as counsel than as a notary public was rejected, as the notarial certificate clearly showed his signature as a notary public with a valid commission. The Court reiterated that Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s violation of the disqualification rule was not a sufficient ground for disbarment, as he did not commit deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or gross immoral conduct. Citing the case of Maria v. Cortez, the Court found that a punishment less severe than disbarment would suffice. The Court agreed that considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation, a reprimand and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for three months was the appropriate sanction. On the second issue (failure to require identification cards): The Court agreed with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he could not be held liable for not requiring identification cards from the affiants, provided he knew them personally. The definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice includes the condition that the individual is personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knew Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer Alvarado personally. Therefore, he was justified in not requiring them to present valid identification cards. However, the Court noted that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was at fault for failing to indicate in the "jurat" that he knew the three affiants personally. Despite this omission, this fact did not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.
Main Doctrine
While a notary public is disqualified from notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity, failure to require identification cards from personally known affiants is not a ground for disbarment, but a violation of the disqualification rule warrants a sanction less severe than disbarment.