Natividad v. Azarraga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr., a notary public, who is accused of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The alleged violation stems from his notarization of a Petition for Issuance of Second Owner's Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title, a Special Power of Attorney, and an Affidavit of Loss. These documents were purportedly executed by Brenda Natividad, appointing an attorney-in-fact to file the petition. However, Brenda later asserted that she did not sign these documents, and that her purported signatures, along with that of her former husband Joselito F. Natividad on the Special Power of Attorney, were forgeries. The original owner's duplicate copy of the title was also claimed to be in the possession of Lucien Natividad, Brenda's former father-in-law, contradicting the Affidavit of Loss. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, after receiving an Opposition to the petition and affidavits from Brenda and Joselito, dismissed the petition. The RTC subsequently ordered the attorney-in-fact and Atty. Azarraga to appear and show cause why no case should be filed against them. Atty. Azarraga submitted a Manifestation and apology, attributing the incident to an oversight and reliance on assurances from the attorney-in-fact. Dela Cruz, the attorney-in-fact, also submitted an affidavit explaining her actions. Following these submissions, the Executive Judge of the RTC issued an Order dated January 7, 2020, suspending Atty. Azarraga's notarial commission for one year for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically for notarizing documents without requiring competent evidence of identity and the principal's presence. The Petition: Aggrieved by the suspension order, Atty. Azarraga filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, invoking specific provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While admitting the factual circumstances, he offered a sincere apology and pleaded for a reduced penalty based on humanitarian and equitable considerations, citing his first offense, his role as a primary provider for his ailing wife and disabled daughter, and his lack of dishonest intent. The Office of the Bar Confidant, however, recommended that the case be noted and approved, affirming the Executive Judge's order and further recommending the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and a six-month suspension from the practice of law, deeming his petition for review an improper remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the penalty imposed by the Executive Judge is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr. guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court revoked his incumbent commission as notary public, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year, and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from notice of the Decision. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed the findings of the Executive Judge and the OBC that respondent violated Section 1(b)(7) of Rule XI and Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to require the presence of the principal at the time of the notarial act and by notarizing documents without requiring competent evidence of identity. The annotation "AFFIANT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" was found to be false as Brenda Natividad and Joselito F. Natividad did not personally appear before the respondent. Furthermore, the Court found that respondent breached Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence or not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. This breach of notarial duties also constitutes 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 (misleading the court). The Court emphasized that a lawyer's failure to fulfill notarial functions violates their oath to uphold and obey the law and engage in lawful, honest, and deceitful conduct. The respondent's reliance on assurances from Dela Cruz did not absolve him of his responsibility to strictly adhere to the notarial rules, as these rules are imbued with public interest. On the appropriateness of the penalty: While acknowledging the respondent's admission of guilt, remorse, and personal circumstances, the Court found that the penalty imposed by the Executive Judge, as recommended by the OBC, was warranted. However, considering that the respondent had partially served the one-year suspension of his notarial commission, that this was his first offense since 2001, and for humanitarian and equitable considerations, the Court decided to proportionately reduce the penalty. The Court revoked his incumbent commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, a penalty consistent with jurisprudence in similar cases, while also issuing a stern warning against future violations.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, as failing in notarial functions constitutes a breach of the lawyer's oath and involves unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.