Dela Cruz v. Dimaano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants alleged that respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. notarized an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights on July 16, 2004, purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. The complainants asserted that their signatures on the document were forged, they did not appear before the respondent to acknowledge the document, and the community tax certificates indicated were not theirs. They claimed the respondent made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion, enabling their sister to claim ownership of their deceased parents' property and sell it. Procedural History: The case originated from a complaint for disbarment filed by Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi against Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent notarized the document despite the complainants not appearing before him, relying solely on Zenaida Navarro's assurance regarding the signatures and community tax certificates. The Commission recommended a one-year suspension, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification for reappointment as notary public for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's recommendation. The core of the complaint was the respondent's alleged violation of the Notarial Law and falsification by notarizing a document where the signatories did not personally appear and acknowledge its contents before him. The respondent admitted notarizing the document but claimed he acted in good faith, relying on Zenaida Navarro's representations due to their long acquaintance.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. breached his duties as a notary public by notarizing an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights without the personal appearance and acknowledgment of all purported signatories. Whether the respondent's actions constitute a violation of the Notarial Law and warrant disciplinary sanctions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's recommendation. The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. breached the Notarial Law. Consequently, his notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked, he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. breached his duties as a notary public. The established facts showed that the complainants did not personally appear before him to acknowledge the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights. The respondent admitted notarizing the document based on the representation of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and community tax certificates were true and correct, despite the complainants' assertion that their signatures were forged and they never appeared. The Court reiterated that a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and that it is their free act and deed, which requires personal appearance. Without such appearance, the notary cannot verify the genuineness of the signature or ascertain that the document is the party's free act. On Issue 2: The respondent's actions constituted a clear violation of the Notarial Law. By stating in the acknowledgment that the complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and acknowledged the document as their "own free act and deed" when they did not, the respondent made untruthful statements. This act converts a private document into a public instrument, and the integrity of notarization relies on the notary's faithful discharge of duties. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act; it is impressed with public interest, and any breach erodes public confidence in notarized documents. The respondent's reliance on Zenaida Navarro's assurance, even with a 30-year acquaintance, was insufficient to absolve him of his responsibility to verify the signatories' identities and acknowledgments personally. Therefore, the recommended sanctions of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification for reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law were deemed appropriate.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is mandated to personally ascertain the identity of the persons appearing before him and to ensure that they acknowledge the instrument as their own free act and deed. This requires the personal appearance of the signatories and the presentation of competent evidence of identity. Failure to observe these requirements, such as notarizing a document based solely on the assurance of another party that the signatures are genuine, constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and subjects the notary public to disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of his notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.