Gerona v. Datingaling
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mena U. Gerona filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alfredo Datingaling for allegedly falsifying and notarizing a "Consent to Quarry" document. The document purported to grant Ronald Reagan Hernandez, represented by Engr. Bayani N. Melo, permission to occupy and engage in quarrying activities on the complainant's property. Complainant alleged that she and her siblings did not appear before respondent notary public on July 2, 1997, as stated in the acknowledgment, and that they had individual daily time records showing they were working in Metro Manila. Furthermore, complainant pointed out that one of the signatories, Wendy Sunshine Umali, referred to two minors (Wendy, 9, and Sunshine, 12), who lacked legal capacity to sign, and that Ronald Reagan Hernandez was also a minor. Complainant also claimed that page 1 of the document was written on a different typewriter and inserted later, and that the land described in the notarized document differed from the one agreed upon. Procedural History: Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Datingaling. Respondent Atty. Datingaling filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations and claiming the complainant signed the documents in Quezon City on July 2, 1997, and had them notarized in Batangas City on July 3, 1997. Complainant submitted a reply-affidavit, including a resolution from the Provincial Prosecutor of Batangas finding probable cause for falsification of a public document against respondent and others. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for one year. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation with modification, suspending respondent's commission as notary public for two years and disqualifying him from appointment as notary public for two years. The Petition: Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with the IBP, which was denied for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court treated the motion as a petition for review. Respondent argued he was innocent and denied receiving the resolution requiring a rejoinder. The Supreme Court considered the motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 139-B, Section 12(b). The Court found the motion without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling is guilty of falsifying a public document. Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling is guilty of violating Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility in his capacity as a notary public.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling was found guilty of violating Act No. 2103, Section 1(a), and was suspended from his commission as a notary public for a period of one (1) year, with a warning against repetition of similar acts. The charge of falsifying a public document was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an administrative case should evidence warrant it, pending the outcome of the criminal case for falsification.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court dismissed the charge of falsifying a public document against respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling. The Court noted that the criminal prosecution based on the same acts was still pending before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. To avoid contradictory findings, the administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act were made to await the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore, the administrative charge for falsification was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new administrative case should the evidence warrant it after the criminal case is resolved. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling guilty of violating Act No. 2103, Section 1(a), and the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 1 and 7. The Court held that a notary public has a duty to require the personal appearance of individuals executing a document and to attest to the truth of its contents as their free act and deed. Respondent failed to controvert complainant's evidence that Wendy Sunshine Umali were two different minors, that they were minors at the time of execution, and that their signatures were made by an unidentified person. The Court also noted that page one of the agreement appeared to have been intercalated and typed with a different machine. The acknowledgment of a document is not an empty act; it converts a private document into a public one. The Court found the suspension of respondent's commission as notary public for two years, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, to be too severe, and in accordance with jurisprudence like Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., imposed a suspension of one year.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a notary public has a duty to require the personal appearance of individuals executing a document and to attest to the truth of its contents as their free act and deed. Failure to perform this duty, such as notarizing a document where the parties did not appear, violates Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility. While the Court found the respondent guilty of violating Act No. 2103, it dismissed the charge of falsification of a public document without prejudice, pending the outcome of the criminal case, to avoid contradictory findings.