Recio v. Fandiño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO) began receiving notices from various Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts indicating that ORASCO bail bonds had been issued and subsequently confiscated. Upon investigation, ORASCO discovered these bail bonds to be fake, utilizing non-genuine forms, bearing forged signatures of their authorized signing officer, and bearing a notice to send all correspondence to an address in Naga City, which was the location of respondent Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño's law office. Complainant Elizabeth Recio alleged that respondent acted as the Notary Public for these spurious bonds and misrepresented himself as ORASCO's counsel and manager, soliciting payments for these fraudulent bonds. Procedural History: The complaint-affidavit was filed by Elizabeth Recio with the Supreme Court on June 28, 2005. The respondent, Atty. Fandiño, filed his comment, and the case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for negligence and unauthorized appearance in court. This recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. A motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent was denied by the IBP. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of Atty. Fandiño for grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the IBP's findings of negligence and breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court modified the penalty, suspending Atty. Fandiño from the practice of law for six months, revoking his incumbent notarial commission, and prohibiting him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court found that the respondent's negligence in securing his notarial paraphernalia and his unauthorized appearances in court prejudiced ORASCO and the accused whose bail bonds were confiscated.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer by allowing the issuance of spurious bail bonds and misrepresenting himself as counsel for ORASCO. Whether the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP with modification on the imposed penalty. The respondent was found guilty of negligence in performing his duties as a notary public and of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months; his incumbent commission, if any, is revoked; and he is prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is warned that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appearing as counsel without authority: The Court found the respondent negligent for purporting to represent ORASCO by signing pleadings and appearing in court on its behalf without verifying the authority of Willy Vargas, who claimed to be an agent of the bondsman. The Court reiterated the principle that persons dealing with an agent are bound to ascertain the agent's authority at their peril. The respondent's failure to exercise due diligence in ensuring ORASCO sought his representation was a breach of his duty as a lawyer. This negligence prejudiced not only ORASCO but also the accused whose bail bonds were confiscated due to the spurious nature of the documents. The respondent's admission that he signed pleadings prepared by Cruz, which were based on patterns from his previous motions, further indicated a lack of prudence, as such an act is equivalent to representing ORASCO in court. On the issue of negligence as a notary public and breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court found the respondent guilty of negligence for failing to secure his notarial paraphernalia and for entrusting them to his secretary, Jeanette Cruz. This negligence provided Cruz and Willy Vargas the opportunity to forge documents and issue spurious bail bonds, causing prejudice to ORASCO. The Court emphasized that a notary public must exercise discretion and caution, and cannot wholly entrust the execution of duties to secretaries. The respondent's act of allowing Cruz full access to his notarial paraphernalia violated Section 2(a) and (c) of Rule VII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which mandates that the official seal be kept safe and accessible only to the notary public or a duly authorized person. This constituted malpractice of law, a ground for suspension or disbarment.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who is commissioned as a notary public must exercise due diligence in safeguarding notarial paraphernalia and in verifying the authority of parties seeking representation, as negligence in these duties constitutes malpractice and may lead to suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public.