Ang v. Belaro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Venson R. Ang sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Salvador B. Belaro, Jr. for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from the discovery of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights, purportedly executed by Venson and his siblings on March 26, 2014, and notarized by Atty. Belaro. Complainant Venson and his siblings were surprised as they did not execute such a document. They discovered three versions of the same document, all notarized by Atty. Belaro, with several irregularities noted, including misspelled names, missing information, and the inclusion of a deceased sibling as a signatory. Additionally, Atty. Belaro notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Acknowledgement Receipt concerning the same property. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed the parties to file their position papers. Atty. Belaro filed a Manifestation with Motion for Reinvestigation, claiming belated receipt of notices and missing annexes. He later filed an Answer denying notarization of the questioned documents and asserting his signatures were forgeries. Subsequently, both parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with an Affidavit of Desistance from Venson. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Belaro negligent for failing to secure his notarial seal and for relying on incompetent evidence of identity for the Deed of Absolute Sale and Acknowledgement Receipt. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the findings but modified the penalty. Atty. Belaro moved for reconsideration, arguing lack of substantial evidence and denial of due process, and that his election as a party-list representative mooted the penalties. The IBP-BOG partially granted the motion, imposing disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on Atty. Belaro's appeal, raising issues of due process violation, propriety of IBP findings, and whether his election mooted the penalties.
Issue(s)
Whether the IBP violated respondent Atty. Belaro's right to due process. Whether the findings and recommendations of the IBP regarding Atty. Belaro's liability for breach of notarial law and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility were proper, and what the appropriate penalty should be. Whether respondent Atty. Belaro's subsequent election in the House of Representatives, the joint motion to dismiss, and the affidavit of desistance mooted the imposition of penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the findings of the IBP and the sanctions imposed. It ruled that Atty. Belaro's right to due process was not violated, as he was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The Court found Atty. Belaro liable for breach of notarial law and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It held that while the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale and Acknowledgement Receipt were forgeries, Atty. Belaro was negligent in failing to properly secure his notarial seal, which was used on the Extrajudicial Settlement. His negligence also extended to his reportorial duties as a notary public. The Court ruled that the affidavit of desistance and Atty. Belaro's election did not warrant dismissal of the complaint. The dispositive portion imposed suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process violation: The Court held that respondent Atty. Belaro's right to due process was not violated. It emphasized that administrative due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding and is satisfied when a party is notified of the charges and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The records showed that Atty. Belaro was notified and filed a Manifestation with Motion for Reinvestigation and an Answer. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP, which was given due course. Therefore, the minimum requirements of administrative due process were observed. On the issue of liability for breach of notarial law and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the appropriate penalty: The Court agreed with the IBP that the signatures on the Extrajudicial Settlement were forgeries and found that the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale and Acknowledgement Receipt were also not genuine. Atty. Belaro was found liable because his notarial seal was used on the Extrajudicial Settlement. The Court stressed that a notary public must keep his official seal safe and secure. Atty. Belaro failed to provide a laudable explanation for the use of his seal, indicating he did not properly secure it. Furthermore, Atty. Belaro was negligent in his reportorial duties. The Court found that Atty. Belaro should be suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission revoked, and he should be disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for two years. This penalty was deemed appropriate. On the effect of the joint motion to dismiss, affidavit of desistance, and election as a party-list representative: The Court ruled that these factors did not warrant the dismissal of the complaint. It reiterated that an affidavit of desistance or withdrawal of a complaint is not sufficient cause to dismiss an administrative case. The Court also took judicial notice that the 1-Ang Edukasyon Party-List failed to win seats in the 2019 elections, rendering Atty. Belaro's argument about his election moot. Even if he were still a Representative, the Court stated that no law prevents the imposition of penalties on an inactive lawyer.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's failure to properly secure and keep his notarial seal, leading to its unauthorized use, constitutes a transgression of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, rendering him liable for negligence. Furthermore, the filing of an affidavit of desistance by the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint, as disciplinary proceedings are for the public welfare and not merely to redress private grievances.