Ricafort v. Bansil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Federico D. Ricafort filed a verified complaint against respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil, a commissioned Notary Public for Guagua, Pampanga, for misconduct and violation of the right to information and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The complainant sought to verify documents notarized by respondent, specifically those in Notarial Book No. XV, Series of 2002. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and referred to Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala. The complainant repeatedly requested the Clerk of Court, Atty. Jorge Bacani, to ask respondent to bring his notarial book for inspection. Respondent failed and refused to heed these requests. Respondent claimed the notarial book was lost due to flooding from July 6 to 20, 2002. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to a reprimand and referred the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the administrative liability of respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil for his failure to make his notarial book available for inspection and for his unprofessional conduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil is guilty of unprofessional conduct for failing to make his notarial book available for inspection and for his inaction regarding the complainant's request. Whether the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees applies to the respondent in his capacity as a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the respondent, with a warning that future similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The Court also admonished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to ensure that Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is observed by its Investigating Commissioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The respondent admitted being a Notary Public and having an obligation to submit his notarial books. He also admitted being notified by the Clerk of Court regarding the complainant's request to examine his notarial book. Despite this, he failed and refused to comply without justifiable reason. The Court found his excuse of the notarial book being lost due to flooding to be a belated, self-serving assertion without proof. Even if the book were lost, respondent should have informed the Clerk of Court and the complainant promptly. His inaction and "arrogance" smacked of dereliction of duty and failure to meet the exacting standards of the legal profession, violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Court found that a mere reprimand was insufficient, thus imposing a fine. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that the complaint against respondent pertains to his discharge of functions as a notary public, not as an elected barangay chairman. Therefore, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees invoked by the complainant does not apply. Instead, respondent, as a lawyer and notary public, is covered by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Professional Ethics. This distinction is crucial for determining the applicable ethical standards and rules governing the respondent's conduct.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility and must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards professional colleagues. Failure to make notarial books available for inspection upon request, or to promptly notify the Clerk of Court and the requesting party of any loss or unavailability of such books, constitutes unprofessional conduct. Such conduct undermines the integrity of the notarial system and can lead to disciplinary action, including fines.