Yuchengco v. Angare
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mary Jane D. Yuchengco, as President of Amendoza Palawan Corporation, was involved in a civil case for recovery of possession with damages, Civil Case No. 5436, before Branch 95 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Puerto Princesa City. In connection with this case, respondent Atty. Anathalia B. Angare notarized a "Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Late Cristituto Dandal, Sr. with Absolute Sale." This Deed was attached to the Answer filed by the defendant in Civil Case No. 5436. The complainant alleged that the Deed was falsified and defective, citing several deficiencies including lack of date, witnesses, identification details, and proper notarization, and noting a discrepancy in the notarial series year. Procedural History: The complainant filed a Verified Complaint on October 16, 2017, seeking the disbarment and permanent disqualification of respondent Atty. Angare from being a Notary Public. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. Following a mandatory conference and the submission of position papers, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that while there was insufficient evidence of falsification, the respondent was careless in observing notarial formalities. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommended the revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and a two-year disqualification. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the IBP's findings and resolution, with a modification to the penalty. The Petition: The complainant's petition sought the disbarment and permanent disqualification of respondent Atty. Angare from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The core of the complaint centered on the respondent's alleged notarization of a falsified and defective Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale, which was attached to an Answer filed in a related civil case. The complainant argued that the Deed suffered from numerous defects and that the respondent's actions indicated an intent to falsify documents. The respondent countered that the notarization was an honest mistake and inadvertent. The Supreme Court, in its review, found the respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice due to her failure to observe the required formalities and her carelessness, leading to the imposition of penalties including revocation of her notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Anathalia B. Angare committed misconduct in notarizing the "Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Late Cristituto Dandal, Sr. with Absolute Sale." Whether respondent Atty. Anathalia B. Angare engaged in unauthorized practice of law by appearing as co-counsel in Civil Case No. 5436.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Anathalia B. Angare guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Her notarial commission, if existing, was revoked, and she was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years. She was also suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Court found her not guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct in notarization: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP that respondent failed to appreciate or was careless in observing the formalities required by the notarial rules. Notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public one. The respondent notarized two distinct documents, the Answer and the Deed, with the same notarial details ("Doc. No. 733, Page No. 158, Book No. 02, Series of 2016"), which is a clear violation of Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, mandating that each notarial act be recorded with specific details and that instruments bear a number corresponding to the register. Furthermore, the Deed lacked the required competent evidence of identity for the signatories, with the spaces for such details remaining unfilled. The respondent's defense of inadvertent notarization was found unconvincing, especially since she submitted a copy of the Deed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, and her notarial log entry for the relevant docket number listed an unfamiliar name. Her "mistake" demonstrated negligence and a failure to grasp the gravity of her duties as a notary public. On the issue of unauthorized practice of law: The Court found respondent not guilty of unauthorized practice of law. This was based on the Certification issued by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, AFP, which indicated that respondent had been granted limited authority to practice law by the Acting Judge Advocate General. Therefore, her appearance as co-counsel in Civil Case No. 5436 was permissible under the said limited authority.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. Failure to appreciate or carelessness in implementing notarial rules constitutes misconduct.