Rosales v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales (complainant) lent her Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 to her brother, Manuel A. Bernardo. Rosalinda later sold the property to Alfredo P. Castro. When Rosalinda asked for her title back, Manuel refused. Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss for the title. Procedural History: The Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that the title had been transferred to Manuel via a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Rosalinda in favor of Manuel on September 5, 1990, and notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on October 1, 1990. Rosalinda denied signing the deed. The NBI's Questioned Documents Division found that Rosalinda's signature on the deed was not genuine. The NBI recommended prosecution of Manuel and Atty. Ramos for Falsification of Public Document and Atty. Ramos for violation of the Notarial Law. The NBI transmitted its findings and a verified complaint for disbarment to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The CBD directed Atty. Ramos to answer. Atty. Ramos admitted signing the deed but failing to enter it in his Notarial Registry, claiming it was an inadvertent signature due to mistake, fraud, undue influence, or excusable negligence, and that he relied on Manuel's assurances. Hearings were set, but the complainant never appeared, and notices sent to her were returned unclaimed. The IBP Board of Governors approved the CBD's recommendation to dismiss the case due to the complainant's failure to prosecute and lack of evidence. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the records transmitted from the IBP. The core issue was whether Atty. Ramos violated the Notarial Law and whether the IBP's dismissal of the disbarment complaint was proper, despite Atty. Ramos's admission of failing to register the notarized deed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos violated the Notarial Law by failing to register the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial register. Whether the complainant's failure to prosecute warrants the dismissal of the disbarment case against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos guilty of violating the Notarial Law for failing to register the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial register. The Court revoked his commission as Notary Public, disqualified him from reappointment, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Court did not agree with the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the case entirely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos violated the Notarial Law by failing to register the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial register. The Court held that respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos clearly violated the Notarial Law by failing to register the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial registry, an act he readily admitted. The Notarial Law explicitly requires notaries public to keep a notarial register and to record therein all official acts, including specific details about notarized documents. On Issue 2: Whether the complainant's failure to prosecute warrants the dismissal of the disbarment case against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos. The Court disagreed with the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the case solely based on the complainant's failure to prosecute and the returned notices. While acknowledging the complainant's non-appearance and the returned notices, the Court found that the respondent's admission of violating the Notarial Law was sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that a notary public has a mandatory duty to keep a notarial register and to record therein all official acts, including the details of notarized documents. Failure to comply with this requirement, such as not entering a deed of absolute sale in the notarial registry, constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law. Such violation demonstrates a lack of diligence and can lead to disciplinary sanctions, including revocation of commission and suspension from the practice of law, as the act of notarization is imbued with substantive public interest and is crucial for the authenticity of documents.