Zarcilla v. Quesada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romeo A. Zarcilla filed a complaint against Marita Bumanglag and Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. for falsification of public documents. Zarcilla alleged that Atty. Quesada notarized a Deed of Sale dated April 12, 2002, and a Joint Affidavit dated March 20, 2002, purportedly executed by Zarcilla's parents, Perfecto and Tarcela Zarcilla. However, death certificates revealed that Tarcela died in 1988 and Perfecto died in 2001, making their personal appearance before the notary public impossible. Bumanglag initially claimed ownership but later Zarcilla withdrew criminal cases against her upon discovering she was allegedly deceived by Atty. Quesada. Procedural History: The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union initially exonerated Atty. Quesada for insufficiency of evidence while indicting Bumanglag. Subsequently, Zarcilla and Bumanglag filed a Petition for Disbarment before the Supreme Court on February 9, 2006. The Court issued multiple resolutions requiring Atty. Quesada to file a comment and pay fines for non-compliance. For over five years, Atty. Quesada ignored these directives, leading the Court to issue a warrant of arrest through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The Petition: The administrative complaint sought the disbarment of Atty. Quesada for gross misconduct. The complainants argued that Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing documents for deceased persons was a fraudulent act that violated the Notarial Law and his Lawyer's Oath. Atty. Quesada, in his belated comment filed only after his arrest, claimed he was a victim of political harassment and vengeance, but offered no apology or justification for his five-year delay in responding to the Court's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing documents for deceased signatories violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether Atty. Quesada's persistent failure to comply with the Supreme Court's resolutions for over five years constitutes willful disobedience and gross misconduct warranting disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds respondent ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. GUILTY of gross misconduct and willful disobedience. He is ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, his name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, his notarial commission is REVOKED, and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Atty. Quesada violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which strictly prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present. By notarizing a Deed of Sale and a Joint Affidavit for individuals who had been deceased for several years, Atty. Quesada could not have verified the genuineness of the signatures or ensured the acts were voluntary. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routine act but one invested with public interest, as it converts private documents into public ones entitled to full faith and credit. Atty. Quesada's certification that the deceased parties appeared before him was a deliberate false representation, not mere negligence. This breach of duty undermined the integrity of the notarial profession and violated his oath to do no falsehood. Applying Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, the Court held that lawyers commissioned as notaries must discharge their duties with the highest fidelity. On Issue 2: The Court found Atty. Quesada's five-year defiance of its resolutions to be a clear case of willful disobedience under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Despite multiple notices, show-cause orders, and fines, the respondent only complied when faced with an actual warrant of arrest and impending detention. The Court characterized this behavior as a 'cavalier attitude' and 'recalcitrant flaw in character' that showed utter disrespect for the judicial institution. Citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, the Court reiterated that its resolutions are mandatory orders, not mere requests to be followed selectively. The respondent's failure to provide any apology or valid justification for the delay further proved his irresponsibility and lack of remorse. Such persistent insubordination is a sufficient independent ground for disbarment, as it demonstrates that the lawyer is unfit to remain an officer of the court.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that notarization is a process invested with substantive public interest that converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Consequently, a notary public is mandated to require the personal appearance of signatories to verify the genuineness of signatures; notarizing documents for deceased individuals constitutes a deliberate falsehood and a violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Furthermore, a lawyer's persistent refusal to comply with the Court's resolutions for an extended period (e.g., five years) manifests a recalcitrant flaw in character and willful disobedience, which justifies the ultimate penalty of disbarment regardless of the outcome of the underlying charges.