Heirs of Torrices v. Galano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by respondent Atty. Haxley M. Galano on July 23, 2012. The deed purported to convey a parcel of land from Dominga Unite Torrices and her husband Miguel G. Torrices to Felipe U. Tamayo and Divina Tamayo for P200,000.00. The Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by their sole heir Miguel B. Torrices, questioned the authenticity of this deed, asserting that both Dominga and Miguel had passed away decades before the notarization date. 2. Procedural History: The Heirs of Torrices filed a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Galano, alleging violations of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Atty. Galano failed to submit an answer to the petition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner recommended a three-year suspension for violating notarial practice rules and potentially the Revised Penal Code. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, resolving to suspend Atty. Galano for three years and revoke his notarial commission. 3. The Petition: This Court reviews the case following the IBP's recommendation. The core issue is Atty. Galano's administrative liability for notarizing a deed of sale where the purported signatories were deceased at the time of notarization, and for falsely attesting to their personal appearance. The Court finds Atty. Galano guilty of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the affiants. Consequently, the Court suspends Atty. Galano from the practice of law for two years, revokes his notarial commission, and perpetually disqualifies him from reappointment as a Notary Public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Galano is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and the Lawyer's Oath by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the signatories who were already deceased.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Haxley M. Galano is found GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 23, 2012 in the absence of the affiants, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. Further, his notarial commission, if still existing, is REVOKED and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Atty. Galano is administratively liable because he transgressed the most fundamental rules in the notarization of documents. Under Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is strictly prohibited from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization. Atty. Galano notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without the presence of Dominga and Miguel, who had been dead for approximately forty years prior to the date of notarization. By stating in the notarial acknowledgment that they personally appeared before him on July 26, 2012, he committed a deliberate falsehood in violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public instrument. Applying the ruling in De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Maliit, the Court reiterated that the conferment of a notarial commission carries the duty to observe basic requirements with utmost care to avoid eroding public confidence. Consequently, the Court modified the IBP's recommended penalty, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public to preserve the sanctity of the notarial office.
Main Doctrine
The physical presence of the parties executing an instrument is indispensable for a valid notarization to ensure that the parties are the same persons who executed the document and that they signed freely and voluntarily. A notary public who notarizes a document in the absence of the parties, particularly when the parties are already deceased, commits a breach of duty and a falsehood, violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Such acts erode public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents and warrant severe administrative sanctions, including suspension and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. Notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.