Buenafe v. Lirazan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe filed a complaint seeking to disbar respondent Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan for grave misconduct in allegedly notarizing and falsifying a public document. Complainant is the owner of Lot No. 3507, acquired through a Declaration of Heirship with Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver and/or Quitclaim of Rights executed by her siblings. In 2008, complainant discovered that a certain Serena Garaygay had paid the real estate tax for the property and that a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in Serena's favor based on a Conformity document allegedly signed by complainant's brother, Jose G. Roa, and notarized by respondent. Complainant alleged Jose's signature was forged and that the National Archives of the Philippines had no record of the Conformity document, but rather a Certification with the same notarial details. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP Commission) recommended the revocation of respondent's notarial commission and his disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years, finding that while he did not falsify the document, he violated his responsibilities under the Rules on Notarial Practice due to discrepancies in his notarial book. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of the respondent for grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan committed grave misconduct in notarizing and falsifying a public document and violated his duties as a notary public under the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan guilty of violating Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his notarial commission was revoked if presently commissioned, and he was disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years. He was sternly warned that a repetition of similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan committed grave misconduct in notarizing and falsifying a public document and violated his duties as a notary public: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Commission, modifying the recommended penalty. The Court emphasized that notarization is an act invested with substantive public interest, converting private documents into public ones entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must discharge their duties with fidelity and observe the rules governing notarial practice. In this case, the respondent failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public. While he admitted notarizing the document, it was discovered that the document did not appear in the records of the National Archives, the final repository for notarized documents. Worse, the National Archives had another document bearing the same notarial registration details as the disputed Conformity document. This raised doubt as to whether the document was indeed notarized. The respondent's failure to record the assailed document in his notarial book and the use of the same notarial details for another document constituted gross negligence. The Court rejected the respondent's imputation of error to his secretary, stating that the notary public is charged by law with the recording of such information. The Court found this failure inexcusable and a direct violation of Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits delegating to unqualified persons tasks that by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar. Such negligence degrades the function of notarization and diminishes public confidence in notarial documents, violating Canon 1 of the Code, which mandates obedience to laws and legal processes. The Court reiterated that courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon acknowledgments executed by notaries public, and the respondent's failure to strictly comply with the rules undermined this dependability.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public has a responsibility to faithfully observe the rules governing notarial practice, having taken a solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Failure to properly record notarial acts in the notarial register constitutes gross negligence and dereliction of duty, warranting revocation of commission, disqualification from reappointment as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.