Heir of Unite v. Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, heirs of Teodora A. Unite, sought the disbarment of Atty. Raymund P. Guzman for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Lawyer's Oath, and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The respondent notarized a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos on November 24, 2010, between Jose Unite Torrices (donor) and his daughter Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices (donee), covering a portion of a parcel of land. Complainants alleged that Jose fraudulently registered the title, and that Cecile, the donee, was abroad on the date of the notarization, as confirmed by a Bureau of Immigration certification. They further alleged that the respondent failed to require competent evidence of identity from the parties. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended the revocation of respondent's notarial commission and disqualification for one year for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially agreed but later, upon reconsideration, dismissed the case, finding substantial compliance. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the case. The Petition: The complainants sought disbarment against Atty. Guzman for notarizing a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos without requiring competent evidence of identity from the parties, thereby violating his lawyer's oath and the CPR.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos without requiring competent evidence of identity from the parties. Whether the respondent's actions constituted malpractice or gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action, considering his repeated infractions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Raymund P. Guzman GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY and declared PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that notarization is a public act impressed with public interest, requiring utmost care from the notary public. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandates that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not in the notary's presence or is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. In this case, the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos did not bear competent proof of identity for Jose, Lolita, and Cecile; only Jose's Tax Identification Number was present, and nothing for the others. The Court rejected the respondent's claim of personal knowledge, noting that the acknowledgment portion did not state such, and that the belated submission of Jose's IDs was insufficient and did not address the lack of identification for Lolita and Cecile. The Court emphasized that the respondent's failure to comply with the notarial rules, particularly in requiring competent evidence of identity, constituted a violation of his duties. On the respondent's repeated infractions and disciplinary action: The Court noted that this was the respondent's third violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, citing two previous cases (A.C. No. 12062 and A.C. No. 12061) where he was found liable for similar failures in notarizing documents involving the same parties or properties. In those cases, he was suspended from the practice of law and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. Given the repeated nature of the offense and the resulting numerous cases involving the subject property, the Court found that leniency was no longer appropriate. The Court concluded that the respondent's acts undermined the integrity of the notarial system and degraded the function of notarization, falling short of the high standards required of lawyers. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for two years and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care in performing duties to preserve public confidence in the notarial system. Failure to require competent evidence of identity from parties to an instrument, absent personal knowledge, constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.