Carandang v. Ramirez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Rene B. Carandang against Atty. Alfredo Ramirez, Jr., alleging violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The core of the dispute involves a Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle for a Nissan Almera, purportedly executed by the complainant in favor of Rockyfeller F. Baltero and notarized by the respondent on August 20, 2014. The complainant vehemently denied executing this document or appearing before the respondent for its notarization, leading to a criminal case for Falsification of a Public Document against Baltero. Further complicating matters, Baltero's counter-affidavit detailed a series of vehicle transactions with the complainant, including the Nissan Almera, and submitted documents, including a sworn statement from the respondent, attesting to the notarization of these deeds. However, a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court revealed that the Nissan Deed of Sale and another Deed of Sale for a Black Vios were not among the respondent's submitted notarial documents, and that the Silver Vios Deed of Sale had the same notarial entry number as a different document. Procedural History: Following the complainant's allegations and the conflicting evidence, a second criminal case for Falsification of a Public Document and Perjury was filed against Baltero and the respondent. The respondent provided inconsistent statements regarding the notarization of the deeds in his counter-affidavits in the criminal cases and to the CIDG. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline directed the respondent to file an answer to the disbarment complaint, which he failed to do. Subsequent notices for mandatory conferences also saw the respondent's non-appearance. Although the parties were directed to submit position papers, the respondent could not be located at his given address, and the order was returned to sender. The IBP, after re-sending the order and still receiving no response, proceeded with the case. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and recommended suspension, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the IBP correctly found the respondent liable for breaching the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted significant irregularities in the notarization process, including multiple documents bearing the same notarial entries and discrepancies in the respondent's notarial register entries, which directly contradicted his sworn statements. The Court also highlighted the respondent's inconsistent accounts of the notarization and his failure to appear before the IBP, which compounded his unethical conduct. While agreeing with the IBP's finding of guilt, the Court modified the penalty, increasing the suspension from the practice of law from one year to two years, revoking his notarial commission, and prohibiting him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, citing the gravity of the offenses and prevailing jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent violated the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility in connection with his notarization of the subject deeds of sale. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate, considering the respondent's conduct and the precedents set by the Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Alfredo Ramirez, Jr. GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED; and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Notarial Rules, Lawyer's Oath, and Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed the IBP's findings that the respondent committed serious irregularities in his notarization of the subject deeds of sale. Specifically, the Nissan Deed of Sale and the Black Vios Deed of Sale bore the same notarial entries ("Doc. No. 450, Page No. 90, Book II, Series of 2014"), and the Silver Vios Deed of Sale shared the same notarial details as another document ("Doc. No. 496, Page No. 100, Book I, Series of 2014"). This directly contravened Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which mandates that each document notarized must be given a unique number corresponding to the notary's register. Furthermore, the Black Vios Deed of Sale, purportedly notarized on August 20, 2014, was registered in Book II, while the Silver Vios Deed of Sale, notarized later on August 28, 2014, was registered in Book I. Compounding these issues, both the Nissan Deed of Sale and the Black Vios Deed of Sale were numbered "Document No. 450," despite respondent's notarial register for Book II, Series of 2014, containing only 410 documents. The Court emphasized that notarization is a serious act imbued with public interest, and a notary public must discharge their duties with faithfulness and strict compliance with the rules to maintain public confidence. The respondent's actions undermined this trust. Moreover, the respondent's sworn statements were contradictory; he initially claimed to have witnessed the execution of the documents, then later asserted they were already signed when presented to him. This inconsistency, coupled with the fact that the deeds of sale were not found in the respondent's submitted notarial documents as certified by the OCC, demonstrated a clear breach of his duty to attest to the truth of the contents and execution of the documents. The respondent also provided a different version of the Black Vios Deed of Sale to the CIDG, further highlighting his untruthful conduct. Such acts violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct), Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (doing falsehood or misleading the court) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His obstinate refusal to participate in the IBP proceedings also violated Canon 11 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers. On the appropriateness of the penalty: While the IBP recommended a one-year suspension, the Court found it proper to increase the period to two years. The Court distinguished the present case from Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, where the respondent lawyer immediately admitted to the illegal notarization and apologized. In contrast, the respondent here made inconsistent and untruthful statements under oath in different proceedings, demonstrating a more egregious disregard for his professional obligations and the integrity of the notarization process. The Court reiterated that it will not hesitate to impose the necessary penalty on lawyers whose conduct falls short of the exacting standards expected of them.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is mandated to discharge with faithfulness the sacred duties of his profession and to strictly comply with the parameters set forth under the Notarial Rules. Failure to do so, including the notarization of documents with identical notarial entries or the submission of inconsistent sworn statements regarding notarization, constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Notarial Rules, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.