Almario v. Agno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Romeo A. Almario filed a complaint seeking to disbar respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the affiants, Francisca A. Mallari (Mallari). Procedural History: The complaint was filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recommended a six-month suspension as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Respondent lawyer admitted the infraction but pleaded for a reduced penalty, citing her first offense, the single document involved, good faith, the compromise agreement in the civil case, her age, and remorse. The complainant insisted on appropriate discipline and suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno committed an infraction for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without the personal appearance of one of the affiants. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno, considering mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court reduced the recommended penalty of six months suspension to two months suspension as a Notary Public and warned her against committing similar infractions. The Court also ordered that copies of the Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of infraction: The Court held that respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno committed an infraction by notarizing the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) despite the absence of Francisca A. Mallari (Mallari), one of the affiants. Section 1, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandate the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public. This requirement is crucial for the notary to verify the identity of the signatory and to ensure the voluntary execution of the document. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration confirmed that Mallari was in Japan at the time the SPA was notarized in Muntinlupa City, Philippines, making her personal appearance impossible. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty act but is imbued with public interest, and notaries public are the vanguards against illegal deeds. Therefore, the respondent's act of notarizing the SPA without Mallari's personal appearance was a clear violation of the notarial law. On the appropriate penalty: The Court, while finding respondent liable, opted to reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP from six months to two months suspension as a Notary Public. This reduction was based on several mitigating circumstances: the apparent absence of bad faith in her notarizing the SPA, the fact that the civil case where the flawed SPA was used ultimately ended in a judicial Compromise Agreement, and that this was her first administrative case since being commissioned as a Notary Public in 1973. Additionally, the Court considered her advanced age. Despite the reduction, the Court issued a stern warning that any repetition of a similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
The personal appearance of an affiant before a notary public is a mandatory requirement for the valid notarization of a document. This requirement is essential for the notary public to verify the identity of the signatory and to ensure that the document was executed voluntarily. Failure to comply with this rule constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and can subject the notary public to disciplinary action, including suspension.