Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Chita Pantoja-Mumar, one of the heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr., filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores for fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty, and violation of his lawyer's oath. The respondent prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale for the complainant and 11 co-heirs, covering a three-hectare property, in favor of spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who later secured a title. Complainant alleged the transaction did not push through, the deed was not notarized, and her signature was forged, with the document being prepared and notarized after June 13, 1988, despite being dated December 29, 1987. She also claimed Maximina Pantoja's thumbmark was falsified and that neither party appeared before the respondent during notarization. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent, as a notary public, committed acts and omissions that were duly established, including notarizing the document after June 13, 1988, without the authority or in the absence of some signatories, not seeing Maximina Pantoja affix her thumbmark, and notarizing the document despite the complainant not signing it. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the report with modification, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for two years and revoking his notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment for two years. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent lawyer, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty, and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The core of the complaint revolved around the respondent's alleged improper notarization of an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale, which the complainant claimed was not a completed transaction and was backdated and falsified to facilitate the transfer of property to third parties, to the prejudice of the heirs.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale. Whether the acts and omissions of the respondent as a notary public warrant disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. He was also suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act invested with public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public. Respondent admitted that he did not see Maximina Pantoja affix her thumbmark on the document, relying instead on the representation of Celedonia Pantoja that she would coax her daughter to do so. Furthermore, respondent admitted that he notarized the document even without the signature of the complainant, Chita Mumar, and acknowledged that this was not proper, legal, or ethical for a Notary Public. These admissions, coupled with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, established that the respondent failed to comply with the essential requirements of notarization, thereby undermining public confidence in notarial documents and breaching Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed that the acts and omissions of the respondent as a notary public warranted disciplinary action. The Investigating Commissioner found that the document was notarized on or after June 13, 1988, despite being dated December 29, 1987, and that this was done without the authority or in the absence of some supposed signatories. The respondent's admission that he did not witness Maximina Pantoja affix her thumbmark and that he notarized the document despite the complainant's absence and lack of signature were critical findings. The Court cited Gonzales v. Ramos in recommending disciplinary measures. Considering that this was the respondent's first administrative offense, the Court modified the IBP's recommendation of a two-year suspension to one year, while upholding the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment for two years, recognizing that disbarment should not be decreed where a less severe punishment would suffice.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that notarization is a substantive act invested with public interest, requiring notaries public to exercise utmost care in complying with formalities. A notary public must ensure that the persons who signed a document personally appeared before them, attested to its contents, and voluntarily executed it. Failure to observe these duties constitutes misconduct, violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and warrants disciplinary action.