Gaddi v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Imelda Cato Gaddi (Gaddi), Operations and Accounting Manager of Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS), opened a BLSS branch in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, believing it was authorized by Angelo Lozada, the Chief Operations Officer. Upon learning of the unauthorized opening, police apprehended the instructors. Gaddi was compelled by Angelo's wife and the Programs Manager to write a handwritten admission that the branch was unauthorized, under threat of not being allowed to leave the office. Gaddi complied and subsequently discovered that Angelo filed a complaint against her using this handwritten admission, which was notarized by Atty. Lope M. Velasco (Velasco). Procedural History: Gaddi filed an administrative complaint against Velasco for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, alleging she did not personally appear before him, consent to the notarization, or provide competent evidence of identity or sign the notarial register. Velasco claimed Gaddi appeared before him, presented identification cards (BLSS ID and TIN ID), and that he duly complied with the notarial rules. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found merit in Gaddi's complaint and recommended a fine. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation with modification, revoking Velasco's notarial commission and disqualifying him for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Lope M. Velasco violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the penalties recommended by the IBP are appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and adopted its recommendations with modification. It found respondent Atty. Lope M. Velasco guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately, with a stern warning against repetition of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed the IBP's findings that Velasco failed to discharge his duties as a notary public. It emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act and requires utmost care. Specifically, Rule IV, Section 2(b) mandates that a notary public must have the signatory personally present at the time of notarization, and personally know them or identify them through competent evidence. Rule VI, Section 3(a) requires the signatory to sign the notarial register. The Court noted that the notarial certificate itself contained unfilled spaces for the identification details, directly contradicting Velasco's claim of proper identification and establishing his remissness in duty. This failure meant he could not have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed voluntarily, a crucial aspect of notarization. Furthermore, Velasco affixed his signature to an incomplete notarial certificate, which is prohibited under Rule IV, Section 5(b). His failure to present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations created a presumption that such evidence would be adverse if produced, as per Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court. Velasco's actions breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and refrain from dishonest conduct. On the appropriateness of the penalties: Considering Velasco's failure to discharge his duties as a notary public, including the lack of personal appearance verification, the incomplete notarial certificate, and dishonesty in his pleadings, the Court found that the penalties imposed by the IBP were warranted. The Court cited previous rulings where similar failures resulted in penalties of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law. In this case, the Court modified the IBP's recommendation by imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law in addition to the revocation of his notarial commission and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. This comprehensive penalty reflects the gravity of the violations and the importance of maintaining the integrity of notarization.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must personally ascertain the identity of the signatory and ensure the document is the signatory's free act and deed. Failure to comply with these requirements, including the proper completion of the notarial certificate and the notarial register, constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting penalties such as suspension from the practice of law and revocation/disqualification from a notarial commission.