Gonzales v. Bañares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Franco B. Gonzales filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Danilo B. Bañares for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in violation of legal requirements. Gonzales alleged that his father, Rodolfo Gonzales, and himself appeared as signatories and witnesses, respectively, on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 23, 2010, covering three parcels of land, despite Rodolfo being in Irosin, Sorsogon at the time and Gonzales himself not being present. Bañares allegedly notarized the document knowing these facts. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the suspension of Bañares from his Commission as Notary Public for one year. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification for two years as Notary Public. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Danilo B. Bañares violated the rules on notarial practice by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of all signatories. Whether Atty. Bañares breached his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Court upholds the findings and recommendations of the IBP. Atty. Danilo B. Bañares is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission is revoked, and he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of notarial practice: The Court found Atty. Bañares administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of Rodolfo Gonzales. The Court emphasized that notarization is an act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement between the parties and that the parties appearing are indeed the same parties who executed it. This assurance cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public. The evidence showed that Rodolfo was not present at the time of the execution of the deed, and Bañares's own admission that Rodolfo merely "pre-signed" the document contradicts his certification in the acknowledgment that Rodolfo "personally appeared before him." The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly requires the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public and identification through competent evidence of identity. Rule IV, Section 2(b) prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or identified. On the issue of breach of duties: Bañares's act of notarizing the document under these circumstances transgressed the rules on notarial practice, sacrificing the integrity of notarized documents and undermining public confidence in the legal profession. His conduct also violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, as notarizing a document without proper verification is considered unlawful and deceitful.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ensure that the parties appearing before him and executing a document are the same persons who personally appeared and acknowledged the same as their free act and deed. Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of personal appearance before the notary public violates the rules on notarial practice and constitutes a breach of the lawyer's duty to uphold the law and maintain professional integrity.