De Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mercedita De Jesus filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit for grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, and unworthiness. De Jesus alleged that Sanchez-Malit notarized a Real Estate Mortgage falsely naming her as the absolute owner of a government-owned market stall, leading to a perjury and collection suit against her. Sanchez-Malit was a consultant for the local government unit and aware of the stall's ownership. Additionally, Sanchez-Malit notarized a lease agreement without the lessees' signatures and a sale agreement for a property covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) without advising De Jesus about the alienation restrictions. Further evidence included Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) not signed by principals and an affidavit corroborating the allegations. Procedural History: The Supreme Court required Sanchez-Malit to comment. Sanchez-Malit explained the mortgage contract was hastily prepared, and the phrase "absolute and registered owner" was an inadvertent error, arguing De Jesus could be considered owner under a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract and that a prior mortgage also named her as owner. She claimed the perjury charge stemmed from a guarantee of freedom from encumbrances, not ownership misrepresentation, and was dismissed. Regarding the lease agreement, Sanchez-Malit stated she provided a court copy to De Jesus and prepared a new one based on De Jesus's assurance it would be signed and returned. For the CLOA sale, Sanchez-Malit asserted De Jesus, an experienced realty broker, needed no advice and the contract noted the property was subject to a DARAB case. She also claimed the SPAs were properly notarized as the attorney-in-fact appeared before her. De Jesus submitted additional documents, including unsigned deeds, affidavits, and contracts. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended revoking Sanchez-Malit's notarial commission and suspending her for two years for notarizing documents without parties' signatures, and for violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 for the mortgage contract. The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation to a one-year suspension. Sanchez-Malit moved for reconsideration, arguing the additional documents were inadmissible and citing mitigating circumstances. The IBP Board denied the motion. The Petition: The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the additional documents submitted by the complainant are admissible as evidence. Whether respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit committed misconduct and violated her oath as a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as her oath as a notary public. Consequently, she is suspended from the practice of law for one year, her notarial commission is revoked, and she is perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of additional documents: The Court ruled that the additional documents submitted by the complainant were admissible. Respondent argued that these documents were obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. However, the Court, citing Tolentino v. Mendoza, held that these rules do not provide for the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof, similar to how rules on confidentiality of birth records do not render such records inadmissible. The Court emphasized that the Revised Rules on Evidence only excludes evidence obtained from illegal searches and seizures, which applies to state actions, not between private individuals. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the complainant's Urgent Ex-Parte Motion was not a prohibited supplemental pleading but an attempt to submit additional evidence to strengthen her existing complaint regarding the notarization of incomplete documents. The Court reiterated that a supplemental pleading serves to bolster or add to the primary pleading, and the complainant was not barred from submitting further evidence to support her charges. On the misconduct and violation of oath: The Court found that respondent committed misconduct and grievously violated her oath as a notary public. The Court stressed the significant role of a notary public and that notarization is not a mere routine act but is invested with substantive public interest, converting private documents into public ones entitled to full faith and credit. The Court highlighted that a notary public must observe basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence. In this case, respondent knowingly notarized a Real Estate Mortgage that falsely named the complainant as the absolute owner of a government-owned market stall. The Court found respondent's explanation that the phrase was an inadvertent error to be insufficient, especially since she was aware of the stall's true ownership. The Court stated that respondent's conduct breached Canon 1 and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Furthermore, the Court found respondent's explanation regarding the unsigned lease agreement incredulous, noting that records showed she had notarized 22 documents that were unsigned or lacked signatures from 2002 to 2004. The Court reiterated that it is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that documents be signed in their presence and that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before them to attest to its contents. By acknowledging that parties personally appeared when they did not, respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath to do no falsehood. The Court concluded that respondent's blatant disregard for her duties warranted suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who knowingly notarizes a false statement or information in a document commits misconduct and violates their oath, undermining public confidence in the notarization process. Such actions warrant disciplinary action, including suspension and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.