Sambile v. Ignacio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Marciano and Lerma Sambile filed a disciplinary complaint against Atty. Renato A. Ignacio for notarizing a Deed of Donation without their personal appearance. The Deed of Donation, purportedly executed on February 15, 2002, involved Remedios Sambile as donor and Marciano Sambile as donee. Complainants were surprised to learn later that a complaint for annulment of the deed was filed against them, alleging falsification because Herminio Sambile, Remedios' husband and Marciano's adoptive father, had allegedly passed away in 1987, prior to the purported signing in 2002. Complainants asserted they never appeared before the respondent notary public. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) faced difficulties in serving orders upon the respondent, who had immigrated to the United States. After several attempts to ascertain his correct address and serve him, the case was archived. It was later submitted for decision, and the IBP-CBD recommended dismissal without prejudice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court. The Court, after noting returned and unserved resolutions, required the IBP and MCLEO to provide the respondent's current address. Subsequently, the Court referred the case back to the IBP for investigation, as a resolution had been duly received by the respondent's representative. During mandatory conferences, the respondent failed to appear, while the complainant Lerma appeared. The respondent was directed to submit a position paper, which he failed to do. The IBP-CBD found the respondent liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a one-year suspension and a two-year prohibition from being a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings with modifications, imposing an additional P5,000.00 fine and ordering the immediate revocation of his notarial commission. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for final action based on the IBP's Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Renato A. Ignacio violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Donation without the personal appearance of the complainants. Whether the respondent's failure to submit a copy of the Deed of Donation to the Office of the Clerk of Court violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Renato A. Ignacio liable for violating Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that the respondent notarized the Deed of Donation despite the complainants' absence. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act invested with public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public to maintain public confidence. The respondent's failure to require the parties to personally appear before him, as mandated by Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, constituted a violation. Furthermore, by acknowledging that the parties personally appeared when they did not, the respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and also violated his lawyer's oath to do no falsehood. The Court noted that the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, stating that no copy of the Deed of Donation was on file for 2002, further supported the dubious nature of the notarization, especially considering the donor's spouse had allegedly died years prior. On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court clarified that the respondent could not be adjudged to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because these rules were not yet in force at the time the Deed of Donation was notarized in 2002. Instead, his actions were governed by Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103. The Court also noted that the respondent's failure to submit a copy of the Deed of Donation to the Office of the Clerk of Court, as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, was not the basis for his liability in this specific instance due to the timing. However, the IBP-CBD's report mentioned this failure as a violation of the 2004 Rules and amounting to unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court's resolution focused on the violation of Public Act No. 2103 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR, which were applicable at the time of the notarization.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the parties violates Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, constituting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The failure to require personal appearance undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.