Leonor v. Ayon-Ayon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Manuel R. Leonor filed a complaint against Atty. Dickson C. Ayon-Ayon and Atty. Eulogio C. Mananquil, Jr. for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale and a Sworn Statement, respectively, without requiring the physical appearance of complainant and his wife, Teresita R. Leonor. Complainant alleged that he and his wife did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 13, 2014, notarized by Atty. Ayon-Ayon, nor did they appear before Atty. Mananquil for the Sworn Statement dated April 15, 2014. Complainant discovered that the subject property, registered under his name, was transferred to Spouses Bonamy through these documents. Teresita R. Leonor was residing in the United States since December 2013 and could not have appeared before the notaries. Procedural History: Atty. Mananquil denied notarizing the Sworn Statement, presenting a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC)-Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, and alleging that his signature and notarial seal were falsified by unscrupulous persons. Complainant, after verifying with the OCC-RTC, withdrew the complaint against Atty. Mananquil. Atty. Ayon-Ayon asserted that Spouses Leonor personally appeared before him, presented proof of identity, and confirmed voluntary execution of the Deed. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Mananquil and the revocation of Atty. Ayon-Ayon's notarial commission with a three-month suspension. The IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) adopted these findings but increased Atty. Ayon-Ayon's suspension to six months and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. Upon Atty. Ayon-Ayon's motion for reconsideration, the IBP-BOG reversed its prior resolution, absolving Atty. Ayon-Ayon, finding that he performed all necessary acts required under the Rules on Notarial Practice and that alleged alterations were made after notarization. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case, adopting the IBP-BOG's resolution dismissing the complaint against Atty. Mananquil and its subsequent resolution absolving Atty. Ayon-Ayon.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Dickson C. Ayon-Ayon failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public, specifically regarding the identification of the parties and potential alterations to the document. Whether the acts of Atty. Ayon-Ayon in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, considering the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the notarization.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action against both Atty. Dickson C. Ayon-Ayon and Atty. Eulogio C. Mananquil, Jr. The Court adopted the findings and approved the Extended Resolution of the IBP-Board of Governors dated May 9, 2019, which reversed its prior resolution and dismissed the case against Atty. Ayon-Ayon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Atty. Ayon-Ayon's Due Diligence: The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP-Board of Governors' finding that Atty. Ayon-Ayon substantially complied with the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and exercised utmost care and diligence. The Court noted that the persons who appeared before Atty. Ayon-Ayon presented the Deed of Absolute Sale and were able to provide competent evidence of identity, including a Unified Multi-Purpose ID, a Tax Identification Number, and a Driver's License, all bearing the names of the purported sellers. These identification documents are considered competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as they are official agency-issued documents bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. Furthermore, the individuals manifested that they voluntarily affixed their signatures on the Deed and declared it as their free and voluntary act and deed. The Court also found that the alleged alterations and intercalations in the Deed submitted by the complainant were made after the notarization by Atty. Ayon-Ayon, and thus, he could not be held liable for them. On the Issue of Compliance with Notarial Rules: The Court considered that these individuals presented an original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 46664, bearing the same names as the presented identification cards, justifying Atty. Ayon-Ayon's belief that they were the true owners. Therefore, Atty. Ayon-Ayon had performed all necessary acts required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him prior to the notarization of the document.
Main Doctrine
A notary public exercises due diligence and substantially complies with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when they require the appearance of parties, verify their identities through competent evidence, and ascertain that the signatures were voluntarily affixed, especially when subsequent alterations to the document are made without the notary's knowledge.