Lopez v. Mata
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Conrado Abe Lopez against three lawyers: Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana. The complainant accused them of dishonesty, malpractice, and violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, seeking their disbarment. The underlying dispute involved a parcel of land inherited by Conrado Lopez. The complainant alleged that the respondents, acting as notaries public, facilitated fraudulent transactions concerning his inheritance. Specifically, he claimed that Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) and a Deed of Sale were notarized without his proper appearance or consent, leading to the erroneous transfer of his property rights. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP-CBD recommended the revocation of the respondents' notarial commissions, a two-year disqualification from reappointment as notaries public, and a three-month suspension from the practice of law for Atty. Mata and Atty. Sentillas, and a three-year suspension for Atty. Abellana due to a previous sanction. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) affirmed this recommendation with modifications, increasing the suspension periods for Atty. Mata and Atty. Sentillas to six months and for Atty. Abellana to three years. Motions for reconsideration by Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Abellana were denied. Subsequently, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing an amicable settlement in a related civil case and the complainant's Affidavit of Desistance. The IBP then elevated the records to the Supreme Court for final action. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the respondents should be sanctioned for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and relevant laws. The Court adopted the IBP-CBD's factual findings but modified the recommended penalties. The core of the petition revolved around the respondents' alleged failure to exercise due diligence in notarizing documents. Specifically, Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata were accused of notarizing SPAs without competent evidence of the affiant's identity, relying instead on a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). Atty. Mata also admitted to notarizing a waiver of rights without proper verification due to respect for a judge. Atty. Abellana was found to have violated the Administrative Code of 1917 by failing to submit his notarial report for 2004. The Court emphasized that notarization is a serious act impressed with public interest and requires utmost care and adherence to rules.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas and Atty. Arturo C. Mata should be sanctioned for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to ascertain the identity of the complainant and notarizing documents with insufficient proof of identity. Whether respondent Atty. Gines N. Abellana should be sanctioned for violating the Administrative Code of 1917 for failure to submit his notarial report.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the factual findings of the IBP-CBD but modified the recommended penalty. The Court found Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for failing to ascertain the complainant's identity and notarizing the Second and Third SPAs with only a CTC as proof of identity, which is tantamount to dishonesty and malpractice. They were suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, their notarial commissions revoked, and prohibited from being commissioned as notaries public for two (2) years. Atty. Abellana was found guilty of violating Section 246 of the Administrative Code of 1917 for failing to submit his notarial register for 2004. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission revoked, and prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata: The Court held that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but one impressed with substantial public interest, requiring utmost care and faithfulness from notaries public. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or identified by competent evidence. Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity but failed to overcome the defect of using a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as competent evidence of identity for the Second SPA, as a CTC does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual. Similarly, Atty. Mata admitted to notarizing the Third SPA without proper verification, out of respect for a judge, but the Court emphasized that a notary public cannot surrender their sworn duty to ascertain identity based on such reasons. The Court reiterated that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity under the Rules. Their failure to properly ascertain the identity of the affiants and the genuineness of their signatures, by affixing their notarial seal, constituted dishonesty and malpractice, eroding public trust in the notarial system. This conduct violated Canons 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to uphold the constitution, obey laws, and refrain from dishonest conduct. The Court cited Heir of Unite v. Guzman in support of the penalty for failing to require competent evidence of identity. On the violation of the Administrative Code of 1917 by Atty. Abellana: The Court found Atty. Abellana guilty of violating Section 246 of the Administrative Code of 1917 for failing to submit his notarial report for 2004. While Section 251 of the same Code allowed the use of CTCs for notarization at the time, Section 246 mandated the monthly submission of notarial entries to the Clerk of Court. Atty. Abellana's failure to submit his report, as evidenced by a certification from the Notarial Section, was deemed a dereliction of duty. The Court noted that Atty. Abellana's attitude during the investigation further bolstered the finding that he did not respect his duties as a notary public. The Court took judicial notice of Atty. Abellana's previous suspension for six months and stern warning in another case (A.C. No. 3452) where he was found to have resorted to falsification and knowingly submitted forged documents. This prior sanction, coupled with the current offense, warranted a more severe penalty. The failure to submit the notarial report is a ground for revocation of a notarial commission under Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as applied in cases like Protacio v. Mendoza and Soriano v. Basco.
Main Doctrine
Notaries public must exercise the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements of notarization to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. Failure to ascertain the identity of signatories through competent evidence constitutes dishonesty and malpractice, warranting disciplinary sanctions.