In Re Diuyan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) forwarded a decision concerning an administrative case against an agrarian reform officer, noting that a Deed of Partition notarized by Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan on July 23, 2003, bore the signature of Alejandro F. Camilo, who had died on August 23, 2001. The Ombudsman furnished a copy to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. Procedural History: The Supreme Court treated the Ombudsman's decision and the Deed of Partition as an administrative complaint against Atty. Diuyan, requiring him to comment. Atty. Diuyan admitted notarizing the document as District Public Attorney, stating that eight indigent individuals appeared before him with the document, affirmed its truthfulness, presented their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs), and signed it in his presence, after which he notarized it for free. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-CBD found Atty. Diuyan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, recommending revocation of his notarial commission for one year due to gross negligence, despite no deceit or malice and considering his prior good record and the affiants' status. The IBP-Board of Governors modified the recommendation, revoking his notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for final disposition on whether Atty. Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition based on CTCs.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition on the basis of the affiants' Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). Whether the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were applicable to the notarization of the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan for lack of merit. The Court found no irregularity in the respondent's act of notarizing the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003, based on the affiants' CTCs, as the law applicable at that time only required the presentation of CTCs. The Court held that the IBP erred in applying the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which were not yet in effect when the Deed was notarized.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition on the basis of the affiants' Community Tax Certificates (CTCs): The Court ruled that Atty. Diuyan should not be held administratively liable. The applicable law at the time of notarization, July 23, 2003, was the notarial law under Title IV, Chapter II, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code, and Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 465. Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code required that documents acknowledged before a notary public must have a certification that the parties presented their proper residence certificates or were exempt, with the notary entering the details of the cedula. CA No. 465 also reiterated the need to present a residence certificate when acknowledging documents before a notary public. In this case, the eight individuals who appeared before Atty. Diuyan presented their CTCs, affirmed the truthfulness of the Deed of Partition, and signed it in his presence. The Court found nothing irregular on the face of the Deed that would have alerted the respondent to inquire further, and the Deed represented a valid exercise of the farmers' right to divide title in their favor. On whether the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were applicable to the notarization of the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003: The Court held that the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not applicable. The Deed of Partition was notarized on July 23, 2003, which was prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC). Therefore, it was incorrect for the IBP to have applied these rules in holding Atty. Diuyan liable. The applicable law was the notarial law under the Revised Administrative Code and CA No. 465, which, as discussed, did not prohibit notarization based solely on CTCs presented by indigent individuals. The Court cited Mabini v. Atty. Kintanar to support the principle that a lawyer cannot be held liable for violating duties as a Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of the complained act did not provide any prohibition.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer cannot be held liable for violation of notarial duties if the act complained of complied with the law extant at the time of notarization, even if subsequent rules impose stricter requirements.