Salita v. Salve
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Melania S. Salita (Salita) filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve (Atty. Salve) for alleged falsification of public documents. Salita, the owner of a parcel of land, applied for a loan and signed blank documents, including a Promissory Note (PN), and later other loan documents including a Deed of Absolute Sale (DAS) as collateral. Salita paid his loan in full, evidenced by a Release of Real Estate Mortgage. Despite full payment, the lender instituted an ejectment complaint against Salita, using the DAS and REM instruments. Salita discovered the DAS was notarized by Atty. Salve and that his Community Tax Certificate numbers were allegedly falsified. Salita noted discrepancies in the notarization dates of the DAS. Salita filed a criminal case for falsification against the lender and Atty. Salve, and the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding insufficient proof. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this dismissal. However, upon reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution recommending the suspension of Atty. Salve's notarial commission for three months, but without stating reasons. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Whether the IBP Board of Governors complied with the procedural requirements in its resolution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Salve guilty of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial commission, if still existing, is revoked, and he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. The Court also admonished the IBP for failing to state the reasons for its resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Salve: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It found it unfathomable that Salita would appear before Atty. Salve to have the DAS notarized when it was detrimental to his own interests, especially since he had already paid his loan in full and had the Release of Real Estate Mortgage as proof. Therefore, the Court concluded that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita's presence. The Court emphasized that a notary public must ensure that the persons who signed a document personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truthfulness, as these acts cannot be delegated. By affixing his notarial seal, Atty. Salve proclaimed that the parties personally appeared, were known to him, executed the instrument, and acknowledged its voluntary execution before him. His failure to require the personal appearance of the parties constituted gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public. The Court cited the case of Atty. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Zabala where a similar offense led to the revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification for two years, a penalty the Court found apt to impose on Atty. Salve due to the comparability of the infractions. The Court also concurred with the IBP Investigating Commissioner's finding that Atty. Salve should be absolved from the falsification charges, as Salita failed to prove these allegations by substantial evidence, and the criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause. On the procedural compliance of the IBP Board of Governors: The Court noted that Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court mandates that decisions of the IBP Board of Governors must clearly and distinctly state the facts and reasons upon which they are based. The IBP's March 8, 2014 Resolution, which recommended suspension but was barren of any reasoning, failed to comply with this provision. The Court exhorted the IBP to be mindful of these rules in future resolutions, even if the recommendation pertains only to a notarial commission and not the license to practice law, due to the inherent connection between the two.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the parties who executed it commits gross negligence in the performance of duty, which warrants the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.