De Guzman v. Venzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Susana G. De Guzman alleged that respondent Atty. Federico T. Venzon notarized a Sinumpaang Salaysay on November 17, 2005, purportedly waiving her rights over a 13,225-square meter parcel of land. This document, notarized by Atty. Venzon, was allegedly used by the Santos Siblings, with the assistance of respondent Atty. Glenn B. Palubon, to file DARAB Case No. DCN R-03-02-2288'05 for the cancellation of complainant's title, which eventually resulted in the loss of her land. Complainant ascribed malpractice to Atty. Venzon for notarizing the document without competent evidence of identity and to Atty. Palubon for knowingly using a fraudulent document. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner initially recommended the suspension of Atty. Venzon as a notary public for six months and the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Palubon. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation but later, upon complainant's motion for reconsideration, modified the penalty for Atty. Venzon to include immediate revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Venzon's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Complainant filed an administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of respondents Atty. Venzon and Atty. Palubon.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Venzon should be held administratively liable for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Palubon should be held administratively liable for knowingly using a fraudulent document. Whether Atty. Palubon was the counsel of record for the Santos Siblings in the DARAB Case, and if the complainant established Atty. Palubon's involvement in the case or his knowledge of any alleged fraud concerning the Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings and recommendations of the IBP, holding respondent Atty. Federico T. Venzon administratively liable and dismissing the complaint against Atty. Glenn B. Palubon for lack of evidence. Atty. Venzon is suspended from the practice of law for six months, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and his incumbent notarial commission is revoked, if any. He is also sternly warned against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Venzon: The Court affirmed the administrative liability of Atty. Venzon for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act imbued with public interest, converting private documents into public ones. Notaries public are mandated to observe utmost care, including performing notarial acts only in the personal presence of the signatory and requiring competent evidence of identity. Atty. Venzon admitted to notarizing the Sinumpaang Salaysay without requiring competent evidence of identity from the affiants due to their age. This failure constitutes a breach of his duties, undermining public confidence in notarized documents. His conduct was fraught with dangerous possibilities, given the conclusiveness accorded to notarized documents. Therefore, he must be held administratively liable for his remissness in his functions as a notary public, which also violates his oath as a lawyer by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. On the administrative liability of Atty. Palubon: The Court found no substantial evidence to hold Atty. Palubon administratively liable. The IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against him for lack of evidence, as the records showed he was not the counsel of record for the Santos Siblings in the DARAB Case. On the lack of evidence against Atty. Palubon: The complainant failed to establish Atty. Palubon's involvement in the case or his knowledge of any alleged fraud concerning the Sinumpaang Salaysay. Consequently, the complaint against him was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must exercise utmost care in performing notarial duties, including requiring competent evidence of identity, to maintain public confidence in notarized documents. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.