Ong v. Bijis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josephine R. Ong filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Salvador M. Bijis for notarizing two Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) and a real estate mortgage, despite the signatories being deceased. Ong alleged that individuals representing themselves as agents of the registered owners of two parcels of land approached her to secure a loan through a mortgage. These individuals presented SPAs authorizing them to mortgage the properties, and Ong lent P50,000.00 in cash and P45,000.00 via check. She was given the titles and signed two real estate mortgage documents. Atty. Bijis notarized the SPAs and one real estate mortgage. When the loan was not paid, Ong attempted to contact the registered owners and discovered they had died long before the execution of the documents. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Bijis negligent for accepting community tax certificates as competent evidence of identity, despite not personally knowing the signatories. The Investigating Commissioner recommended revoking Atty. Bijis' notarial commission and suspending him for two years. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted this recommendation with modification, also recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court to determine if Atty. Bijis was administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Bijis committed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the penalties recommended by the IBP-BOG are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP-BOG. Atty. Salvador M. Bijis was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that Atty. Bijis was negligent in his duties as a notary public. He admitted that he did not personally know the signatories of the documents and relied on community tax certificates as proof of identity. The Court emphasized that under the Notarial Rules, competent evidence of identity requires at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing a photograph and signature. Community tax certificates were explicitly disregarded as competent evidence due to their unreliability and lack of photograph and signature. The Court noted that the registered owners of the properties had died years before the documents were executed, a fact that should have been discovered had Atty. Bijis exercised proper diligence and demanded the correct identification. His failure to do so allowed impostors to appear before him, violating the rule that the notary must verify the identity of the affiant and ensure the document is their free act and deed. Furthermore, the Court found that the document was likely pre-signed, as Ong did not claim her signature was forged, indicating a deviation from the rule that documents must be signed in the notary's presence. This negligence constitutes a violation of Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution, obeying laws, promoting respect for law) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On the propriety of the penalties: The Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the IBP-BOG, which included suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court reiterated that notarization is an act invested with substantive public interest, converting private documents to public ones, and thus requires utmost care from notaries public. The penalties are consistent with jurisprudence for similar violations, reflecting the gravity of failing to discharge notarial duties, which undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost diligence in verifying the identity of persons appearing before him, requiring competent evidence of identity such as a photograph and signature-bearing identification document, and cannot rely on unreliable documents like community tax certificates, especially when the affiants are not personally known to the notary. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to penalties including suspension from the practice of law.