Iringan v. Gumangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by Carmelo Iringan against Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan. The dispute stemmed from a civil case for illegal detainer and ejectment filed by spouses Renato and Carmen Iringan against Carmelo Iringan. The spouses Iringan claimed ownership of a property leased to Carmelo, who is Renato's brother. Carmelo contested this, asserting the property was inherited from their parents and that Renato was merely a trustee. A key point of contention was a Contract of Lease, notarized by Atty. Gumangan, which Carmelo alleged was spurious, claiming he never signed it nor appeared before the notary. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the spouses Iringan, finding the Contract of Lease valid and duly notarized. Carmelo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC's decision. While the RTC case was pending, Carmelo filed the administrative complaint against Atty. Gumangan with the Supreme Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissing the disbarment complaint but advised Atty. Gumangan to be more circumspect and recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and a two-year disqualification from acting as a notary public due to irregularities in the notarization process and failure to submit his notarial report. The Petition: The administrative complaint, initiated by Carmelo Iringan, alleged that Atty. Gumangan committed professional misconduct by preparing and notarizing a spurious Contract of Lease between Carmelo and Renato Iringan. Carmelo argued that the contract was fraudulent because it was purportedly executed on December 30, 2005, yet Renato Iringan's Community Tax Certificate (CTC) was issued on January 17, 2006, and Carmelo's CTC was not indicated on the document. Furthermore, Carmelo claimed he had never met Atty. Gumangan prior to the civil case proceedings and that the contract was never filed with the Clerk of Court's notarial report. The petition sought the disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gumangan.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan committed violations of the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing the Contract of Lease. Whether the defects in the notarization of the Contract of Lease affect its validity as between the parties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Gumangan guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His commission as notary public, if any, was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He was directed to report the date of his receipt of the Decision to determine the effective date of his suspension and was warned that a repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely. The Court also clarified that any defect in the notarization of the Contract of Lease did not affect its validity as between Renato and Carmelo, as it remained a binding private instrument.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Notarial Law and Rules: The Court held that Atty. Gumangan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of Renato and Carmelo. The Rules explicitly prohibited notarizing an instrument if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or not identified through competent evidence of identity. In this case, there was no showing that Renato and Carmelo presented valid identification documents, and their CTCs were not even possessed at the time of notarization. Renato's CTC was secured weeks later, and Carmelo's was never presented. The Court reiterated that CTCs are no longer considered competent evidence of identity under the current rules. Furthermore, Atty. Gumangan failed to comply with Rule VI, Section 2(d) and (h) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by not submitting a duplicate original copy of the Contract of Lease to the Clerk of Court and by failing to include it in his notarial report, as attested by the RTC Clerk of Court. This failure undermined the integrity of the notarization process and diminished public confidence in notarial documents. On the effect of defective notarization on the validity of the Contract of Lease: The Court clarified that the defects in the notarization of the Contract of Lease did not affect its validity as between Renato and Carmelo. The Court noted that the MTCC and RTC had already found the Contract of Lease to be validly executed and binding between the parties, based not solely on the notarized document but also on the consistent declarations of Renato, Atty. Gumangan, and the witnesses. The absence of proper notarization formalities would merely render the contract a private instrument rather than a public one, but it would not invalidate the lease agreement itself. Parties who appear before a notary public should not suffer the consequences of the notary's negligence in submitting reports. Therefore, the irregularity in notarization was not fatal to the validity of the lease agreement between Renato and Carmelo.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is administratively liable for violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing a document without competent evidence of identity of the parties and for failing to submit the required notarial report and duplicate original copy of the instrument to the Clerk of Court. Such violations warrant the revocation of the notary public commission and disqualification from being commissioned for a period.