Caronongan v. Ladera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ian B. Caronongan, a bank officer, alleged that respondent Atty. Jairo M. Ladera notarized an incomplete Contract of Lease between Peoples Bank of Caraga, Inc. (Bank), represented by its Branch Manager Wilma A. Tepan, and Teresita M. Ladera, the respondent's mother. The complainant asserted that the respondent violated notarial rules by notarizing a document involving his mother and that the contract was incomplete as it lacked the Bank's representative's signature. Wilma Tepan corroborated that the Bank did not consent to the new contract with a significantly increased rent and had vacated the property. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed by Ian B. Caronongan against Atty. Jairo M. Ladera for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The respondent countered that the complainant was not an aggrieved party and that the Bank suffered no injury. The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found the respondent in violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Rules and recommended a reprimand and a three-month disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The IBP-Board of Governors adopted this recommendation with modification, imposing a reprimand and a three-month suspension from appointment as a notary public. The Petition: This Court reviewed the case to determine if the respondent should be held administratively liable. The Court agreed with the IBP's findings but not the recommended penalty. The Court emphasized the public interest in notarization and the notary's duty to ensure documents are the free act of the signatories. While the respondent notarized a document signed by his mother, violating the disqualification rule, the Court noted that no other party signed and no apparent injury was caused. The respondent admitted his mistake, attributing it to his inexperience as a new lawyer. Considering these circumstances, the Court opted to admonish the respondent with a warning, finding no bad faith, prejudice, or prior offenses, and believing he had learned his lesson.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jairo M. Ladera should be held administratively liable for notarizing a contract of lease involving his mother as lessor and a bank as lessee, despite the bank's representative not appearing before him, thereby violating Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to the alleged incompleteness of the notarized document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP but modified the recommended penalty. Respondent Atty. Jairo M. Ladera is ADMONISHED with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court reiterated that notarization is not a meaningless act but is imbued with public interest, transforming private documents into public ones. A notary public must observe due care and basic requirements. Section 3(c), Rule IV disqualifies a notary public from notarizing documents where the principal is a relative within the fourth civil degree of affinity or consanguinity. In this case, respondent notarized a lease contract signed by his mother, thereby violating this disqualification rule. The Court noted that only the respondent's mother signed the contract, and the acknowledgment itself did not state that any other person appeared before him. On the alleged incompleteness of the document and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court observed that the complainant admitted the Bank and Teresita did not pursue the lease agreement, indicating no apparent injury was caused by the notarization. Respondent readily admitted his mistake, attributing it to being a new lawyer with unfamiliarity and an eagerness to help, without intent to cause damage. He asserted the document was not incomplete as only his mother signed it, and he did not claim Wilma appeared before him. Given these circumstances, the Court found no evidence of bad faith, the mistake was admitted, no prejudice was caused, and the respondent was a new lawyer and a first-time offender. Therefore, the Court deemed it proper to admonish the respondent instead of imposing a harsher penalty, believing he learned his lesson and would be more circumspect in the future.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is disqualified from notarizing a document where the principal is a relative within the fourth civil degree of affinity or consanguinity. While a notary public is expected to observe due care in performing duties, a first-time offender who admits mistake and causes no prejudice may be admonished.