Mina v. Manigos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Macario V. Mina (Mina) filed an Administrative Complaint for disbarment against Attorneys Arnulfo H. Manigos (Atty. Manigos), Florencio V. Anchuvas (Atty. Anchuvas), and Roberto B. Arca (Atty. Arca), alleging falsehood and intentionally misleading the Court. Mina claimed that Atty. Manigos notarized a "Verification/Certification" on May 16, 2006, without the personal appearance of Ernesto Velasco (Velasco), who had traveled to the United States (US) on May 12, 2006. Mina also averred that Attys. Arca and Anchuvas conspired in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on May 16, 2006, also without Velasco's personal appearance, presenting a Bureau of Immigration (BI) certification as proof of Velasco's absence. Procedural History: Atty. Manigos admitted notarizing the verification/certification in Velasco's absence, citing client accommodation to timely file an answer and his personal examination of the document. Atty. Arca vehemently denied notarizing the SPA, claiming his signature was forged and that he did not know the parties or his co-respondents. He also submitted a certification from the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC Manila) showing that his Notarial Book No. XII for 2006 was not submitted, implying the SPA's non-existence in his records. Atty. Anchuvas initially failed to file a comment, was fined by the Court, and later claimed non-receipt of the complaint and lack of factual/legal basis. The Investigating Commissioner found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable, recommending revocation of notarial commission, one-year suspension, and two-year disqualification, while absolving Atty. Anchuvas. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors affirmed the dismissal against Atty. Anchuvas but recommended a PHP 20,000.00 fine for non-compliance with directives. It affirmed Atty. Manigos's liability but tempered his suspension to three months. For Atty. Arca, the IBP Board found his signature forged and recommended dismissal of the charge against him. The Petition: This is an administrative complaint for disbarment, with the Supreme Court reviewing the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors regarding the alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) by the respondent attorneys.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Manigos violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the signatories. Whether Attys. Arca and Anchuvas conspired in the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the signatories. Whether Atty. Arca's failure to submit Notarial Book Nos. XI and XII for the year 2006 merits administrative sanction. Whether Atty. Anchuvas should be fined for failure to comply with IBP directives.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Arnulfo H. Manigos GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, SUSPENDING him from the practice of law for a period of six months, REVOKING his current notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITING him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. He was also STERNLY WARNED against repetition. The complaint against respondents Attys. Roberto B. Arca and Florencio V. Anchuvas was DISMISSED for failure of complainant Macario V. Mina to substantiate his allegations. However, respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca was directed to SUBMIT a Verified Explanation regarding his failure to submit to the Executive Judge his Notarial Book Nos. XI and XII.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found Atty. Manigos guilty of violating Rule 4, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Atty. Manigos categorically admitted notarizing the verification/certification in the absence of Velasco, which directly contravenes the mandatory requirement of personal appearance. The Court emphasized that a notary public's familiarity with a signatory's signature or assurances from other persons, such as Velasco's wife, do not justify non-compliance with this fundamental rule. Furthermore, Atty. Manigos's justification of merely accommodating his long-time clients to prevent default was deemed unacceptable, as Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) mandates that a lawyer's zeal must remain "within the bounds of law and the CPRA." The Court reiterated that the requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way to ascertain the authenticity of a document and is a safeguard against fraud. Citing Navarrete v. Atty. Brillantes, Jr., Ko v. Atty. Uy-Lampasa, and Tabao v. Atty. Lacaba, the Court imposed a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, increasing the IBP's recommended three-month suspension to align with established jurisprudence for similar infractions. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the IBP Board's finding that the complainant failed to offer sufficient proof that Atty. Arca notarized the subject SPA or that he conspired with Atty. Anchuvas. Atty. Arca consistently and vehemently denied notarizing the SPA, asserting that his signature was forged and that his notarial seal and Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number on the SPA differed from his official records. The IBP Board noted marked differences in Atty. Arca's supposed original signature and the one on the SPA, and the variance in the notarial seal and PTR number. The Court found these observations persuasive, concluding that the complainant did not debunk Atty. Arca's denials or present other evidence of conspiracy. Consequently, the charge against Atty. Arca was dismissed for lack of merit, and by extension, the charge of conspiracy against Atty. Anchuvas also failed due to lack of factual and legal basis. On Issue 3: While absolving Atty. Arca of the notarization charge, the Court noted his admission, through the Certification dated September 28, 2016, from the Notarial Section of RTC Manila, that he failed to submit his Notarial Book Nos. XI and XII for the year 2006. This failure is a violation of Rule XI, Section 1(b)(5) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that an Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who fails to submit his notarial register when filled. The Court, therefore, directed Atty. Arca to submit a verified explanation for this non-submission, indicating that this separate administrative matter would be dealt with accordingly. On Issue 4: The Court disagreed with the IBP Board's recommendation to fine Atty. Anchuvas PHP 20,000.00 for his alleged failure to comply with IBP directives. A scrutiny of the records revealed no proof, such as registry return receipts, that Atty. Anchuvas actually received the mails sent by the IBP Board containing the directives. The Court held that without evidence of actual receipt, there was no basis to penalize Atty. Anchuvas for non-compliance. This aligns with the basic evidentiary principle that "bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof," as cited in Glee Properties Corp., Inc. v. Salino. Thus, the recommendation to impose a fine on Atty. Anchuvas was disapproved.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes that notarization is not a mere routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private instrument into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. To ensure authenticity and prevent fraud, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandates the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public at the time of notarization. This requirement is fundamental and cannot be dispensed with, even if the notary public is familiar with the signatory's signature or receives assurances from other parties, nor can it be excused by a lawyer's zeal to accommodate clients.