Fabay v. Resuena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gregory Fabay filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Rex A. Resuena for Gross Misconduct, alleging unauthorized notarization of documents related to Civil Case No. 2001. The underlying dispute involved an ejectment case where Atty. Resuena represented the plaintiffs. On October 15, 2003, Atty. Resuena notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Apolo D. Perez to represent several plaintiffs, including Amador Perez and Valentino Perez. However, it appeared that only Remedios Perez signed the SPA on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez, and Gracia Perez. Notably, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez had died long before the SPA's execution (September 7, 1988, and April 26, 1976, respectively). Atty. Resuena also allegedly notarized a complaint for ejectment where Apolo Perez was made attorney-in-fact for the deceased Amador and Valentino Perez, and participated in prohibited barangay conciliations. Procedural History: The ejectment case was initially decided in favor of Atty. Resuena's clients, but the Regional Trial Court remanded it for trial on the merits, noting the death of Amador and Valentino Perez. The disbarment complaint was filed with the Supreme Court. Atty. Resuena was required to file a comment, which he did, denying the allegations and claiming malice. The case was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena violated notarial law and recommended revocation of his notarial commission and a one-year disqualification. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Complainant moved for reconsideration, seeking suspension as a lawyer, not just disqualification as a notary. The IBP Board denied the motion but modified the penalty to a two-year disqualification from notarial practice. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case, concurring with the IBP's findings on the violation but differing on the penalty. The Court emphasized the importance of notarization as a substantive act and the strict requirement for personal appearance of signatories. The Court found that Atty. Resuena violated notarial law and his oath by notarizing the SPA without all affiants personally appearing, especially since two were deceased and others were abroad. The Court noted that Atty. Resuena, as counsel, should have known the circumstances and that his actions allowed him to be an instrument of fraud.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Resuena committed malpractice as a notary public by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney despite the death of two signatories and the absence of others. Whether Atty. Resuena violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility through his actions as a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Rex A. Resuena guilty of malpractice as a notary public and of violating his lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Atty. Resuena committed malpractice as a notary public. It was undisputed that he notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) where two of the principals, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez, were already deceased at the time of execution. Furthermore, Remedios Perez signed on behalf of these deceased individuals, as well as for Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were residing abroad. The Court stressed that notarization is not a trivial act but one invested with substantive public interest, requiring the notary to ensure the personal appearance of all signatories to verify their identity and the genuineness of their signatures. Atty. Resuena's failure to require the personal appearance of all parties, especially knowing that some were deceased, demonstrated a clear ignorance of the importance of his office and a violation of the notarial law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court found his justification that the deceased individuals' names were not in the acknowledgment portion irrelevant, as they were signatories to the SPA itself. This act undermined the integrity of notarization and allowed the SPA to be used in an ejectment case, potentially as an instrument of fraud. On Issue 2: The Court found that Atty. Resuena violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. By notarizing the SPA under the circumstances, he breached his solemn oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. As an officer of the court, Atty. Resuena had a duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt them. His actions, particularly as the counsel for the plaintiffs in the ejectment case, suggested an intentional violation of the notarial law, making him an instrument of fraud, which the Court will not tolerate. The Court reiterated that lawyers are expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and failure to do so brings reproach upon the legal profession. Therefore, his conduct warranted severe disciplinary action beyond that recommended by the IBP.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act imbued with public interest, requiring strict adherence to legal requirements. A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of all parties signing a document to verify their identity and the genuineness of their signatures, as well as to ascertain that the document is their free act and deed. Failure to comply with this fundamental requirement, particularly when aware of the death of signatories or their absence, constitutes malpractice and a breach of the lawyer's oath, warranting severe disciplinary action.