Aldea v. Bagay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Dominador and Maura Libang died, leaving a parcel of land. Their daughter, Virginia Libang Aldea (complainant), inherited a portion. Virginia discovered an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, purportedly executed by the heirs of spouses Libang, transferring the property to spouses Enrico and Arlina Datu. This document was notarized by respondent Atty. Renato C. Bagay on May 28, 2010. Virginia alleged that her signature and community tax certificate on the document were forged, as she never appeared before Atty. Bagay. She also noted that another heir, Leonida L. Cabulao, was already deceased at the time of notarization. Procedural History: Virginia, assisted by her husband Atty. Ramon Aldea, filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public documents and a disbarment complaint against Atty. Bagay before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The Petition: The disbarment complaint alleged that Atty. Bagay acted with malice in notarizing the spurious document despite the absence of the affiants and the fact that one of them was already deceased. Atty. Bagay admitted notarizing the document but claimed he acted in good faith, without knowledge of any falsity, and pointed out his prior acquittal in the criminal case where his participation was limited to the subscription and swearing of signatories.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Bagay was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. Bagay's administrative liability?
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Renato C. Bagay GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, his notarial commission is REVOKED, and he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public. He is also given a STERN WARNING that repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence and violation of rules: The Court held that Atty. Bagay was negligent in discharging his duties as a notary public and a lawyer. By affixing his signature and notarial seal, he attested that Virginia and Leonida personally appeared before him and acknowledged the document. However, he failed to refute the claim that they were not present during notarization. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act; it converts a private document into a public one, entitling it to full faith and credit. Notaries public must observe basic requirements with utmost care. The Court reiterated that a notary public is forbidden to notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present and known or identified through competent evidence. Atty. Bagay's reliance on community tax certificates, which are not competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, was a punishable indiscretion. His acquittal in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public documents was of no moment, as the administrative charge focused on his act of notarizing without complying with the Notarial Rules. On the appropriate penalty: The Court considered Atty. Bagay's previous administrative liability in Angeles, Jr. v. Bagay (December 3, 2014), where he was found grossly negligent for notarizing documents while outside the country or signed by his secretary. In that case, his notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified for two years, and suspended from practice for three months with a stern warning. Despite this, he committed a similar violation, demonstrating a propensity to disregard the Notarial Rules and the CPR. Therefore, the Court modified the IBP Board's recommendation, imposing a penalty of two years' suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from becoming a notary public, emphasizing the importance of the duties and responsibilities of a notary public.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer, must exercise utmost care in performing their duties, including verifying the identities of signatories and ensuring the document is their free act and deed. Failure to do so constitutes negligence and can lead to administrative sanctions.