Brozas-Garri v. Reago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Maria Brozas-Garri charged respondent Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago with breach of duty and violation of his Lawyer's Oath. The charges included failing to return Brozas-Garri's owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8458, preparing and notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Atty. Reago's wife to lease Brozas-Garri's property despite Brozas-Garri's signature being allegedly forged and her being abroad, and failing to file an appellees' brief and render a status report in a case where he was counsel. Atty. Reago claimed TCT No. 8458 was returned through Brozas-Garri's sister, evidenced by a receipt. He asserted the SPA was prepared upon Brozas-Garri's instruction and she had knowledge of the lease, consenting to repairs and receiving rentals. He stated the charge of non-rendering a status report was a ploy and that he had rendered services without payment. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended Atty. Reago be found administratively liable for violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, proposing a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) modified this, recommending a two-year suspension, disqualification as a notary public for two years, and revocation of his notarial commission, finding the violation aggravated by his role as an agent of untruthfulness. Atty. Reago's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The issue before the Court is whether Atty. Reago should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. The Court affirms and adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest as it converts a private document into a public document. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires a notary public to perform a notarial act only if the signatory is in the notary's presence and personally known or identified. A breach of this provision also constitutes a violation of the CPR. Atty. Reago's act of notarizing the SPA without the signatory's personal appearance and with a forged signature falls short of the required accuracy and fidelity. He is estopped from claiming the SPA was unnecessary as it was used in the lease execution. The Court finds Atty. Reago administratively liable and imposes penalties of suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of his notarial commission if subsisting, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, considering the aggravation of his role as an agent of untruthfulness.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Reago should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of; and whether the defense of superfluity of the SPA should be considered. Whether Atty. Reago violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability; and what is the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The Court affirms and adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon II, Sections 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two years; his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, is REVOKED; and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Reago and the defense of superfluity of the SPA: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board. Notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest. Notaries public must exercise utmost care, ensuring the signatory is personally present and identified. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandates this presence. Atty. Reago's act of notarizing the SPA without the signatory's personal appearance and with a forged signature clearly violated these requirements. The Court rejected Atty. Reago's argument that the SPA was unnecessary, as it was used and essential in the execution of the lease contract. Brozas-Garri's receipt of benefits did not negate Atty. Reago's liability, as the complaint focused on the act of forging the signature and improper notarization. On the violation of the Notarial Rules and CPR and the penalty to be imposed: The Court reiterated that a breach of the Notarial Rules constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). Specifically, Atty. Reago's actions violated Canon II, Sections 1 and 11 of the CPRA. His act of notarizing a document with a forged signature and without the signatory's presence made him an agent of untruthfulness, aggravating the offense. The Court found the penalties recommended by the IBP Board appropriate, considering the aggravated nature of Atty. Reago's violation, which involved forging a signature and notarizing without the signatory's presence, the two-year suspension from practice, two-year disqualification as a notary public, and revocation of his commission were deemed just.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is enjoined to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, particularly the personal presence of the signatory at the time of notarization. Failure to do so undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial acts and constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the lawyer's oath.