Piczon-Hermoso v. Parado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon Hermoso alleged that respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale concerning a parcel of land. The deeds were purportedly executed by Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug and her husband, Michelangelo C. Patalinghug, who were the predecessors-in-interest of the complainants. Complainants averred that on February 15, 2007, the date of notarization, Estrella was recently discharged from the hospital after chemotherapy and her mental faculties were deteriorating, making it impossible for her to execute the deed. They also alleged that Michelangelo, who was blind, was already bedridden and remained so until his demise, making his appearance and execution of the deeds impossible. Procedural History: Despite several directives from the Supreme Court to file a comment, Atty. Parado failed to do so. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the IBP proceedings, Atty. Parado also failed to submit any pleading or appear during the mandatory conference, while the complainants complied with all directives. The IBP Commissioner recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to a one-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being appointed as notary public for two years. The Petition: The complainants filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Parado for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by allegedly notarizing documents without the affiants personally appearing before him.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Parado should be held administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Parado was a commissioned notary public in 2007.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for two years, prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any. He was warned that repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Parado: The Court affirmed the administrative liability of Atty. Parado. His failure to file any comment or answer to the complaint, despite due notice, rendered the allegations of the complainants uncontroverted. Furthermore, the IBP found that Atty. Parado notarized the Deeds of Absolute Sale without the supposed signatories, Estrella and Michelangelo, personally appearing before him on February 15, 2007. This finding was based on the complainants' assertion that Estrella was physically incapacitated due to illness and hospitalization, and Michelangelo was bedridden and blind. The Court emphasized that notarization is a substantive act that requires the personal appearance of the signatory to verify their identity and ensure the document is their free act and deed. The violation of this fundamental requirement under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear. The Court found the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors to be appropriate. The Court cited a similar case where an erring lawyer was suspended for two years, had their notarial commission revoked, and was disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two years. Applying this precedent, the Court meted out the same sanctions to Atty. Parado, considering the gravity of his violations, which included notarizing documents without proper appearance and potentially lacking a valid commission at the time. On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and whether Atty. Parado was a commissioned notary public in 2007: The Court held that Atty. Parado violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which mandates that a notary public must perform a notarial act only if the signatory is in the notary's presence and personally known or identified through competent evidence. By notarizing the deeds without the personal appearance of the signatories, Atty. Parado undermined the integrity of notarization. Moreover, the Court noted that it appears Atty. Parado was not a commissioned notary public in 2007, which is a grave transgression. His actions also constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (doing falsehood or misleading the court), as he engaged in acts of falsehood and dishonesty. His failure to comply with court orders further demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and his oath as a lawyer.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must personally ascertain the identity of the signatory and ensure the document is the signatory's free act and deed. Failure to do so, especially when coupled with misrepresentation of commission status, constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting severe sanctions.