Mendoza v. Santiago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Celia D. Mendoza filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant is an heir of Adela Espiritu-Barlaan, who owned a parcel of land. On October 25, 2013, heirs of Felimon Gundran Barlaan executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver and Transfer of Rights over the subject property, which was notarized by respondent. Subsequently, John Alexander Barlaan, one of the adjudicatees, sold 147 square meters of the property to Monette Abac Ramos for P3,130,000.00 via a Deed of Absolute Sale (First Deed of Sale) dated November 26, 2014, also notarized by respondent. Thereafter, John Alexander Barlaan executed another Deed of Absolute Sale (Second Deed of Sale) for the same 147 square meters in favor of Monette Abac Ramos for P1,500,000.00, also notarized by respondent. Monette Abac Ramos later filed an Ejectment case after discovering the property she bought was occupied by other relatives. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Monette Abac Ramos. Procedural History: Complainant filed the instant disbarment complaint on June 23, 2017. Respondent argued that complainant lacked legal personality and that the issue of ownership was resolved. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended suspension from practice for one year and revocation of notarial commission for two years. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, recommending suspension for two years, immediate revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors regarding the respondent's alleged violations.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing two Deeds of Absolute Sale for the same property with different consideration amounts. Whether the complainant has the legal personality to file the disbarment complaint.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; his notarial commission is REVOKED, effective immediately; and he is DISQUALIFIED 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 act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. The respondent did not dispute notarizing two Deeds of Sale for the same property with different amounts. The First Deed of Sale indicated a consideration of P3,130,000.00, while the Second Deed of Sale, submitted to the Registry of Deeds, stated P1,500,000.00. The Court found that this act was undeniably for the purpose of minimizing the client's tax liability. Such an act constitutes a violation of Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The Court emphasized that notarization is imbued with substantive public interest, and a notary public has the duty to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements. By notarizing a document with an illegal purpose, the respondent abetted in depriving the government of correct taxes due. This conduct undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents and the legal profession. The Court cited Lopez v. Ramos and Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua as analogous cases where similar actions led to penalties of suspension and revocation of notarial commission. The Court also noted that under the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is considered a serious offense. On the issue of complainant's legal personality: The IBP-CBD correctly ruled that the complainant had legal personality to file the administrative complaint because she established personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the respondent's alleged violations. This finding was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes two deeds of sale for the same property with different considerations, with the evident purpose of minimizing tax liability, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.