Ang v. Gupana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Carlito Ang filed an affidavit-complaint against respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana. Ang alleged that on May 31, 1991, he and other heirs executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B. Ang later discovered that the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) for the lot had been cancelled and new TCTs issued in the names of other individuals. Ang claimed respondent participated in forgeries and falsifications by preparing and notarizing an Affidavit of Loss and a Deed of Absolute Sale. The Deed of Absolute Sale, allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was claimed to be antedated with a forged signature, as evidenced by a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cebu. Respondent's Notarial Report indicated that Document No. 181 was an affidavit, not the Deed of Absolute Sale. The Affidavit of Loss, allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 29, 1994, was impossible as she died on March 26, 1991. Ang further alleged that respondent, acting as attorney-in-fact for other individuals, sold a portion of the lot (Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4) to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. on October 10, 1995, despite a pending civil case involving the property. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent administratively liable and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years. Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing his actions were not illegal or unethical and the penalty was excessive. The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion and affirmed its resolution. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 139-B, Section 12(c) of the Rules of Court, assailing the resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is administratively liable for misconduct related to his actions as attorney-in-fact. Whether respondent violated his notarial duties by notarizing the Affidavit of Loss. Whether respondent violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating notarial tasks to unqualified staff.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana administratively liable. The Court found no unethical conduct in selling the property as attorney-in-fact because no notice of lis pendens was annotated on the specific lot sold, and there was insufficient evidence of the Deed of Absolute Sale being antedated. However, the Court found respondent administratively liable for violating his notarial duties by failing to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when notarizing the Affidavit of Loss, as she was already deceased at the time of notarization. The Court also found respondent liable for violating Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating notarial functions to clerical staff. The penalty imposed was suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged unethical conduct as attorney-in-fact: The Court found that respondent did not act unethically when he sold the property as the sellers' attorney-in-fact because, at the time of the sale, there was no notice of lis pendens annotated on the particular lot that was sold. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient evidence to establish that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated. Therefore, the Court cleared respondent of administrative liability concerning his actions as an attorney-in-fact in the sale of the property. On the violation of notarial duties: The Court found respondent administratively liable for violating his notarial duties. Specifically, he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss, which allegedly bore her signature and was dated April 29, 1994. The evidence clearly showed that Candelaria Magpayo had died on March 26, 1991, three years prior to the execution of the affidavit. This act directly contravened Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Notarial Law), which mandates that the person acknowledging an instrument must appear before the notary public. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring notaries public to observe basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence. On the violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found respondent liable for violating Rule 9.01, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person any task that by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar. Respondent admitted that it was his consistent practice to have his clerical staff handle documents to be notarized, including initial inquiries about the completeness of requirements and the identity of signatories. He relied on his staff to forward documents after they were signed and only then would he inquire about the identities before affixing his notarial signature. The Court held that this reliance on clerical staff, coupled with the notarization of a document by a deceased person, constituted misconduct. The Court stressed that a lawyer-notary public must personally ascertain the genuineness of signatures and that documents are the free act and deed of the signatories, not merely delegate these crucial functions.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must discharge his duties with utmost care and fidelity, particularly ensuring the personal appearance of signatories and the veracity of the notarized documents, as notarization is invested with substantive public interest and failure to do so constitutes misconduct.