Triol v. Agcaoili
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Nicanor D. Triol and his sister, Grace D. Triol, co-owned a parcel of land in Quezon City. In January 2011, Triol intended to sell the land to Leonardo P. Caparas but could not obtain the signature of Grace, who was residing in the United States (U.S.). Triol later discovered a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 11, 2011, purportedly conveying the land to a certain Fajardo. The deed was notarized by respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., despite the fact that neither Triol nor Grace had appeared before him or consented to the sale. Triol also discovered that the Community Tax Certificates (CTC) used in the deed were fraudulent. Procedural History: Triol filed a disbarment complaint against respondent. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal, finding that respondent's signature might have been forged as he was not a commissioned notary in Quezon City in 2011. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this, recommending a two-year suspension and disqualification from being a notary public. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CIBD) Director Ramon S. Esguerra issued an Extended Resolution explaining that respondent failed to prove the forgery of his signature because he did not submit official signature records for comparison. The Petition: The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review. Respondent maintained his defense of forgery and argued that he could not have notarized the document as he lacked a notarial commission in Quezon City during the period in question. He relied on his bare denials and a specimen signature provided in his Answer to the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by notarizing a document without the presence of the parties. Whether respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, and his incumbent commission, if any, is REVOKED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that notarization is a substantive public interest act that converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Under Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public must ensure that the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization. In this case, it was established that Grace Triol was in the United States (U.S.) at the time of the alleged notarization, making her personal appearance impossible. On Issue 2: Certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City proved that respondent was not a commissioned notary public in 2011 or 2012. The Court rejected respondent's defense of forgery, noting that bare denials are insufficient; he failed to submit official signature records from the Office of the Clerk of Court to authenticate his specimen signature. By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary, respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Consequently, following the precedents in Tenoso v. Echanez and Japitana v. Parado, the Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from notarial duties.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him. This requirement enables the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. Furthermore, misrepresenting oneself as a commissioned notary public when no such commission exists is a deceitful conduct that undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the notarial system, warranting severe administrative sanctions including suspension from the practice of law.