Bucag v. Olalia
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations of falsification of a public document, violation of the lawyer's oath, dishonesty, obstruction of justice, and gross violation of the notarial law. These charges stem from the respondent attorney's notarization of a deed of absolute sale concerning a parcel of irrigated rice land. The complainant alleges that the sellers named in the deed were incorrect and that the property description was based on a tax declaration despite the property being titled, which was irregular and potentially fraudulent. 2. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed by Enrica Bucag against Atty. Bernard P. Olalia with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The CBD, through Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda, issued a Report and Recommendation finding the respondent liable and recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the IBP's decision, the respondent filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, essentially reiterating the arguments made in his motion for reconsideration. The petition sought to overturn the IBP's findings and recommendations. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in the respondent's petition, concluding that the IBP's recommendation was fully supported by the evidence and applicable laws.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Bernard P. Olalia is guilty of falsification of public document, violation of lawyer's oath, dishonesty, obstruction of justice, and gross violation of the notarial law; specifically, whether the preparation and notarization of a deed of sale using a tax declaration description for a titled property, where the sellers were not the registered owners, constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Olalia's actions constitute a violation of his duties as a lawyer and notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the resolution of the IBP. Respondent Atty. Bernard P. Olalia was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from notice, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years after the service of the period of suspension, and if he was presently commissioned, his notarial commission was immediately revoked.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's administrative liability and the violation of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility due to the preparation and notarization of the deed of sale: The Court found Atty. Olalia liable for gross violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The records showed that in 2013, Atty. Olalia prepared and notarized a deed of sale for a parcel of land described by its Tax Declaration No. 05-6271, even though the property was already covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-52293. Furthermore, the sellers named in the deed, Liboro Garcia and Virginia "Loreta" Garcia, were not the registered owners of the property. The Court noted that Atty. Olalia, as a lawyer and notary public, is expected to use true, honest, dignified, and objective information and to serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court found it puzzling how a notary public could fail to use a certificate of title in preparing documents for the transfer of titled property, knowing that tax declarations are merely possible indices of ownership and not proof thereof, especially when a certificate of title exists. The Court concluded that there was a lack of ordinary care and diligence on the part of the respondent. On the violation of duties as a lawyer and notary public: The Court held that Atty. Olalia's actions constituted a violation of his duties as a lawyer and notary public. By preparing and notarizing a deed of sale that used a tax declaration description for a titled property, and where the sellers were not the registered owners, Atty. Olalia failed to exercise the required competence and diligence. This failure to adhere to the proper procedures for the transfer of titled property, and his reliance on a tax declaration instead of the title itself, demonstrated a lack of ordinary care. Such conduct falls short of the standards expected of a member of the Bar and a notary public, thereby violating Canon 3, Canon 18, and Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer and notary public has a duty to exercise ordinary care and diligence in preparing and notarizing documents, especially those involving titled properties. Relying solely on tax declarations when a certificate of title exists is a violation of this duty, as tax declarations are merely indices of ownership and not proof thereof. Such negligence can result in disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.