Dandoy v. Edayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Hernanie P. Dandoy filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Roland G. Edayan for alleged violations of Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dandoy alleged that on October 17, 2006, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate. The SPA purportedly authorized a certain Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo to mortgage two parcels of land owned by Dandoy's deceased father, Jacinto S. Dandoy. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement involved the property of Dandoy's late grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, with Jacinto also listed as a party. Dandoy asserted that his father, Jacinto, had passed away on July 13, 1999, and thus could not have appeared before the respondent on October 17, 2006. Garzo subsequently mortgaged the properties for P400,000.00, which were later foreclosed. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for failing to comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules, recommending the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court to resolve whether the IBP correctly found the respondent liable for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Roland G. Edayan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly identify the signatories to the notarized documents. Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and adopted the recommendations of the IBP with modifications. Respondent Atty. Roland G. Edayan was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his incumbent commission as a notary public was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He was warned that repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court reiterated that notarization is impressed with public interest, and notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties to preserve public confidence in the notarial system. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that a signatory must personally appear before the notary and be identified through competent evidence. Competent evidence of identity is defined as a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or affirmation by credible witnesses not privy to the instrument. In this case, the respondent relied on residence certificates to identify the person claiming to be Jacinto, who had already died years prior. Residence certificates are not considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules, and more importantly, they do not bear the photograph and signature of the individual. The respondent's failure to require a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification card meant he could not have discovered that the person appearing before him was not Jacinto. Furthermore, the witnesses to the documents, Felipe and Garzo, were privy to the instruments, thus disqualifying them as credible witnesses for identification purposes under the Rules. The respondent's actions thus made it appear that Jacinto personally appeared and subscribed to the documents, violating the 2004 Notarial Rules to the detriment of Dandoy and his siblings. On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: As a lawyer and an officer of the court, the respondent is expected to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. By notarizing the subject documents without proper verification, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted with concern that the respondent still maintained that residence certificates were sufficient identification, demonstrating a failure to keep abreast of legal developments, specifically changes in the notarial rules. This negligence not only caused damage to the affected parties but also undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and the function of notarization. Consequently, the respondent was held liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must strictly comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly regarding the verification of identity through competent evidence, to uphold the integrity of the notarial system and the legal profession. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.