Ick v. Amazona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson, and Teresita Edosada filed a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent Atty. Allan S. Amazona for notarizing an allegedly false document. The document was a letter dated March 7, 2016, signed by Michelle B. Lotho, Director and Auditor of South Forbes Phuket Mansions Homeowners Association, Inc., addressed to Loiue A. Odiamar, Head of the Homeowners Association Franchising Unit. Complainants alleged that the letter falsely stated that most buyers of subdivision lots were out of the country, making it improbable to secure their signatures, and that respondent knew this assertion was untrue due to his constant communication with residents. They also claimed that a list of members with signatures attached to the letter was false, referring to attendance at a property manager meeting, not a homeowners meeting for association registration. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera, recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. Commissioner Cabrera opined that notarizing the letter was not a violation of the Notarial Rules, as the respondent merely attested to the affiant's personal appearance and subscription to the truth of the contents. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and dismissed the complaint. The Petition: The complainants appealed the IBP's dismissal to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Allan S. Amazona violated the Rules of Court, Notarial Rules, or Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the March 7, 2016 letter. Whether the complainants sufficiently established through substantial evidence that the respondent knowingly notarized a false document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted and approved the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, dismissing the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Allan S. Amazona for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent violated ethical rules by notarizing the letter: The Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent merely performed his duty when he attested to the fact that Michelle B. Lotho personally appeared before him and signed the letter. The Court reiterated the principle that in disbarment proceedings, the complainant must satisfactorily establish the allegations through substantial evidence, and mere allegations without proof are disregarded. The truth or falsity of the allegations in the notarized letter was deemed the sole responsibility of the affiant, Lotho, and did not extend to the respondent as the notary public. The Court found no violation of the Rules of Court, the Notarial Rules, nor the Code of Professional Responsibility in the respondent's act of notarization itself. The Court emphasized that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence, aligning with the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. On whether substantial evidence proved the respondent knowingly notarized a false document: The Court found that the complainants failed to establish through substantial evidence that the respondent knowingly notarized a false document. The respondent's role as a notary public was limited to certifying the due execution of the document, which involved verifying the identity of the signatory and ensuring the signature was made in his presence. The complainants did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent was aware of the falsity of the statements contained within the letter he notarized. Therefore, the burden of proof required in disbarment proceedings, which necessitates substantial evidence, was not met by the complainants.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is not responsible for the truth or falsity of the allegations in a document they notarize, provided they have merely attested to the fact that the affiant personally appeared and subscribed to the truth of the contents. The burden of proving that the notary knowingly notarized a false document rests on the complainant through substantial evidence.