Ferguson v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Nenita De Guzman Ferguson alleged that she purchased a house and lot for ₱800,000.00. Without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to transfer the title to her name, which was void ab initio. Complainant filed a petition for cancellation of the CLOA before the DAR, where respondent Atty. Salvador P. Ramos, Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan, represented the defendants. Complainant later withdrew the DAR petition and filed a case before the RTC. She discovered that the Deed of Sale dated April 24, 2009, which formed the basis of the title transfer, was fraudulently altered to cover only the land and a price of ₱188,340.00 instead of ₱800,000.00. Complainant alleged her signature and that of her husband were forged, and Atty. Ramos notarized the deed without their presence. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Ramos guilty of violating notarial law and recommended suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD's findings with modification, revoking his notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months. The Petition: Complainant sought the disbarment of Atty. Ramos for falsification, violation of notarial law, and engaging in private practice while employed in government service.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ramos violated the Rule on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Ramos engaged in private practice while employed in government service.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Salvador P. Ramos guilty of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission was revoked effective immediately, and he was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court agreed with the IBP that the issue of engaging in private practice while employed in government service should be addressed by the Civil Service Commission. The Court also referred the matter of the two deeds of sale with the same notarial registry details to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for tax assessment and possible prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Rule on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that Atty. Ramos violated the Rule on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The rules mandate that a notary public must require the personal appearance of the signatory to the instrument or document at the time of notarization, and that the signatory must be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Atty. Ramos's denial of notarizing the April 24, 2009 deed of sale and claim of forged signature did not exonerate him. The Court noted that Douglas, one of the parties, was not in the Philippines on May 12, 2009, the date the "genuine" deed of sale was notarized, as evidenced by his passport. Furthermore, both the April 24, 2009 and May 12, 2009 deeds of sale bore the same document number, page number, and book number in Atty. Ramos's notarial registry, raising suspicion about how a purported forger of the earlier deed would know these details. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is imbued with public interest, requiring accuracy and fidelity from the notary public. By affixing his signature and seal, Atty. Ramos gave the deed the force of evidence and led the public to believe that the parties personally appeared before him, which was not the case. This conduct was fraught with dangerous possibilities given the conclusiveness accorded to notarized documents. The Court cited Bautista v. Bernabe and Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio in stressing the importance of personal appearance and verification of signatures. The Court also referenced Gonzales v. Ramos on the significance of notarization in converting private documents to public ones. The Court found Atty. Ramos's conduct to be a violation of his mandate as a lawyer and notary public, similar to cases like Santuyo v. Atty. Hidalgo and Ocampo-lngcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., where lawyers were disciplined for similar infractions. The Court ultimately found the suspension of six months, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public to be in order. On the charge of engaging in private practice while employed in government service: The Court agreed with the IBP CBD that this issue should be addressed by the Civil Service Commission for the determination of appropriate administrative liability, if any. Therefore, this specific charge was not ruled upon by the Supreme Court in this disbarment proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must exercise the function of his office with utmost care and observe the basic formalities and requisites in the performance of his duties, including requiring the personal appearance of the parties to a document before notarization. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Rule on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.