Zialcita v. Latras
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita obtained a loan from Ester Servacio, securing it with a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over a commercial property. The spouses alleged that Servacio and Atty. Allan Latras fraudulently substituted the first page of this deed with a Deed of Absolute Sale for a lesser amount. They further contended that Atty. Latras, acting as legal counsel and notary public for Servacio, notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without their knowledge or appearance. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Latras in violation of the notarial law for failing to require the personal appearance of the spouses. However, it found no proof of fraud or connivance and recommended a mere reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, revoking Atty. Latras' notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Latras' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP Board of Governors' resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Latras violated the notarial law by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the parties. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the alleged fraudulent substitution of pages and conspiracy between Atty. Latras and Ester Servacio.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the findings and resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Allan Latras was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He was also warned that a repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of notarial law: The Court affirmed that Atty. Latras violated the notarial law by notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of the spouses Zialcita. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly requires the personal appearance of the parties before the notary public to enable the latter to verify the genuineness of the signatures and the voluntary execution of the document. Atty. Latras' contention of substantial compliance, based on a phone call with one of the spouses and the presence of witnesses, was rejected. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public to maintain public confidence. The failure to require personal appearance undermines this confidence and constitutes a breach of duty. On the alleged fraudulent substitution and conspiracy: The Court found that the complainants failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to substantiate their claim of forgery and fraud on the part of Atty. Latras and connivance with Ester Servacio. In administrative disbarment cases, the burden of proof rests on the complainants, and mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient to establish fraud. Therefore, this claim was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the parties before him during notarization. Failure to comply with this requirement, even with the assurance of the parties or witnesses, constitutes a violation of the notarial law and warrants disciplinary action.