Magaway v. Avecilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Virgilio D. Magaway and Cesario M. Magaway sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla for alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath, duties under Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, rules on notarial practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. They claimed that the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) P-2419, mortgaged by the late Gavino Magaoay to the late Elena Gongon, was fraudulently reconstituted and sold. They alleged that Atty. Avecilla prepared, notarized, and manipulated a falsified Deed of Sale dated December 7, 1993, and an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, purportedly executed by the late Elena Gongon in favor of Angelito Ramiscal Sr. et al. These documents, allegedly prepared by Atty. Avecilla and his wife Loreta for a fee of Php 30,000.00, led to the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) T-238312, T-238313, T-238314, and T-238315. The complainants asserted that Elena Gongon died on May 11, 1966, and Gavino Magaoay died on December 3, 1963, making the December 7, 1993 deed and the April 3, 1995 request for separate titles impossible to have been executed by them. Procedural History: The notarization of these documents led to several legal actions. Two criminal cases for estafa through falsification of a public document and falsification of a public document were filed against Angelito Ramiscal Sr., the respondent, and his wife, but both were dismissed. A civil action for the declaration of nullity of the reconstituted title and derived TCTs was filed by the complainants against the Ramiscals and the respondent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the civil case, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the dismissal. The administrative complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Petition: The IBP Investigating Commissioner found in favor of the complainants and recommended the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for one year and the indefinite revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, recommending suspension for one year and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla committed gross negligence and violated his duties as a lawyer and notary public in notarizing the Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Non-Tenancy. Whether the respondent's defense of an impostor appearing before him is sufficient to absolve him of liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court held that the respondent committed gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public by failing to ascertain the identity of the person executing the documents. His defense that an impostor appeared before him was not given credence, as he should have demanded proof of identity and exercised greater precaution. The Court found that his actions undermined public confidence in notarized documents and breached his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, the respondent's notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross negligence and violation of duties: The Court emphasized that the function of a notary public includes guarding against illegal or immoral arrangements and that notarization transforms private documents into public ones, serving as prima facie evidence of their authenticity. By affixing his notarial seal and signature, the respondent proclaimed that the parties personally appeared, were known to him, and voluntarily executed the instruments. His failure to ascertain the identity of the person executing the documents constituted gross negligence. This neglect breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for the law. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a perfunctory act but is invested with substantial public interest, and notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties to maintain public confidence. On the defense of an impostor: The Court found the respondent's assertion of an impostor appearing before him to be a convenient excuse that did not absolve him of liability. As a notary public, he was mandated to demand proof of identity before notarizing documents. The objective of verifying the genuineness of signatures and the voluntariness of execution was not served by his casual approach. By failing to ensure the true identity of the person appearing before him, he clearly did not exercise the necessary precautions to prevent forgery and falsification. His argument that no one was prejudiced was also rejected, as the notarization adversely affected the complainants' and Eleanor Gongon Flores' rights in the property.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to exercise due diligence in verifying the identity of persons executing documents, particularly when faced with suspicious circumstances such as the appearance of an impostor, commits gross negligence and breaches his duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action including revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law.