Bernardo v. Restauro
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo and Marcelino G. Soriano were co-owners of a parcel of land. The dispute arose when respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney on July 19, 1990. This document falsely purported to appoint Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as attorney-in-fact to sell the property, based on the alleged appearance and acknowledgment of Felicidad G. Soriano, her deceased spouse Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia. Crucially, Alberto Bernardo had been deceased for over ten years at the time of the document's execution, rendering the acknowledgment fraudulent. Procedural History: Complainant filed a petition for disbarment or indefinite suspension against Atty. Restauro on June 8, 1992, alleging malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found that while the respondent may not have been a party to the fraud, he failed to exercise utmost diligence in verifying the identities of the individuals who appeared before him, especially considering the significant transaction. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation, reprimanding Atty. Restauro and revoking his commission as a notary public indefinitely. This Court noted the IBP's resolution on January 13, 2003. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment or indefinite suspension of Atty. Restauro, along with payment for her share of the property and attorney's fees. The IBP recommended a reprimand and indefinite revocation of the notary commission. This Court, while agreeing that the respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence, found that disbarment or indefinite suspension was unwarranted given the circumstances and lack of evidence of direct fraud by the respondent. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Restauro as a notary public for six months and warned him against future transgressions.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney despite the alleged non-appearance of the executants, one of whom was deceased. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found that respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as a notary public. However, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to warrant disbarment or indefinite suspension. Consequently, respondent was suspended as a notary public for six (6) months and warned that future incidents would be dealt with more severely. The IBP's recommendation of reprimand with indefinite revocation of commission was modified.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney despite the alleged non-appearance of the executants, one of whom was deceased: The Court held that while the respondent's act did not warrant disbarment or indefinite suspension, he did fail to exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the persons executing the Special Power of Attorney. The complainant alleged that her deceased husband, who had passed away more than ten years prior to the notarization, was made to appear as an executant. The respondent claimed that the parties appeared before him and presented identification, including Community Tax Certificates. The Investigating Commissioner noted that a notary public is not obliged to go beyond the identification papers presented and investigate further to ascertain the real identity of the executing party, as long as the party appears and acknowledges the document. However, the Commissioner also stressed that the notary public's office is imbued with public trust and requires the exercise of due diligence, especially in transactions involving property disposition. The Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent should have exercised utmost diligence in verifying the identities, considering the nature of the document which authorized the sale of a property share. On Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate: The Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP. While acknowledging the respondent's failure to exercise utmost diligence, the Court found no evidence of fraud involved in the respondent's act. Considering all the circumstances, the Court deemed a suspension of six (6) months as a notary public to be sufficient. The Court also cautioned all notaries public to be very careful and diligent in ascertaining the true identities of parties executing documents before them, especially when property disposition is involved, stating that such cases would be dealt with more severely in the future. The IBP's recommendation of reprimand with indefinite revocation of commission was thus reduced to a six-month suspension.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the stringent duty of a notary public to exercise utmost diligence in verifying the identities of individuals executing documents, especially those concerning property transactions. While a notary is not obligated to conduct an exhaustive investigation beyond presented identification, a failure to exercise due diligence in confirming identity can result in disciplinary sanctions. The case underscores the public trust inherent in the office of a notary public and the necessity of fidelity in performing their duties.