Velarde v. Ilagan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Rogelio N. Velarde (complainant) filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Ruben M. Ilagan (respondent) for alleged violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The case involved several Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized by the respondent, purportedly executed by Narciso Salas, who was deceased at the time of notarization. The subject land, originally dedicated for parks and playgrounds and owned in common by lot owners, was registered in Narciso's name. After Narciso's death, the land was subdivided and registered in the names of Narciso and his surviving spouse, Lina Domingo Salas. Five lots were allegedly sold by Narciso and Lina through Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized by the respondent three to four years after Narciso's death. The complainant alleged that the respondent falsely attested to Narciso's personal appearance, depriving the co-owners of their rights. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued notices for mandatory conference hearings. The respondent failed to appear at the hearings. The IBP required the parties to submit position papers. The complainant submitted his, but the respondent failed to do so. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found the respondent guilty of misconduct for certifying deeds of sale knowing one vendor was dead and recommended a two-year suspension from practice, revocation of notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The complainant asserted that the respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing deeds of sale with a deceased affiant, thereby falsely attesting to the deceased's personal appearance. The respondent, in his Answer, denied the allegations and claimed his signatures were forged.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the respondent's conduct warrants the imposition of a penalty. Whether or not the respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ruben M. Ilagan guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent's conduct warrants the imposition of a penalty: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP-CBD and the IBP Board of Governors, holding that the respondent failed to fulfill his duties as a notary public. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but a significant responsibility that converts private documents into public ones, making them admissible in evidence with full faith and credit. The integrity of notarized documents is paramount to public confidence. The respondent's act of notarizing deeds of sale for a deceased affiant directly undermined this integrity. His failure to ensure the personal appearance of the affiant meant he could not ascertain the genuineness of the signature nor the due execution of the document, which is a fundamental requirement for notarization. The Court found this conduct to be a clear violation of the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus warranting disciplinary action. On the issue of whether the respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court unequivocally ruled that the respondent violated these rules. Specifically, Rule IV, Section 1(b) and (c) of the Notarial Rules mandate that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified by competent evidence. The respondent's notarization of deeds of sale for Narciso Salas, who was deceased, clearly contravened this rule. By doing so, the respondent failed to ascertain the identity and the due execution of the document by the purported vendor. Furthermore, the respondent's repeated failure to attend mandatory conference hearings before the IBP demonstrated a disregard for the authority of the IBP and constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers. The Court found the penalty recommended by the IBP, which included suspension, revocation of commission, and disqualification, to be proper given the breach of notarial rules and defiance of IBP orders.
Main Doctrine
A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents where the affiant did not personally appear before him, especially when the affiant is deceased. Such act constitutes misconduct and warrants disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.