Soriano v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano (the Spouses Soriano) are the registered owners of a parcel of land. Their sister, Marciana Reyes, entrusted the owner's copy of the title to Susan Manito for assessment of taxes related to a potential sale. The title was not returned and was later discovered to have been mortgaged to Gaila Montero. The Spouses Soriano discovered a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006, registered under Entry No. 64418, where they appeared as mortgagors for a P60,000.00 loan from Montero. They denied the authenticity of their signatures and denied appearing before the notary public. They also noted that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) indicated in the deed were secured from the City of Manila, while they were residents of Molino, Cavite. Subsequently, on August 16, 2006, they discovered a Supplemental to the Deed of Mortgage registered under Entry No. 64467, notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca, indicating an additional P200,000.00 loan, which they also denied signing or appearing for. Procedural History: The Spouses Soriano filed a civil case for the recovery of the owner's duplicate copy of their title and the nullification of the mortgages. They also caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens on the title. A complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondents Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Arca for allegedly notarizing documents without the presence of the complainants, in violation of the Notarial Law. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Ortiz for insufficiency of evidence but recommended suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification for Atty. Arca. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) initially approved the report with modification, dismissing the complaint against Atty. Ortiz and suspending Atty. Arca for six months. However, in a subsequent resolution, the BOG reverted to the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation, suspending Atty. Arca for one year, revoking his commission, and disqualifying him for two years. Atty. Arca filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Respondent Atty. Arca sought compassion from the Court, arguing that the penalty of one-year suspension and two-year disqualification was inappropriate for his infraction as a notary public. He contended that his omission related to his actuations as a notary public, not as a lawyer, and proposed a lesser penalty of three months suspension and three years disqualification. He questioned the BOG's change of mind in reverting to the one-year suspension without stated reason. He also argued that the case of Tabas v. Atty. Mangibin, relied upon by the Investigating Commissioner, was inapplicable, and instead cited Soriano v. Atty. Basco and Father Aquino v. Atty. Pascua as more appropriate precedents.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. is liable for notarizing documents without the presence of the complainants. Whether respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca is liable for notarizing documents without the presence of the complainants. Whether the penalty imposed on respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca is appropriate.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. for insufficiency of evidence. The Court sustained the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspending him from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoking his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibiting him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. for insufficiency of evidence. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Ortiz had no participation in the execution of the questioned documents. It was established that Atty. Ortiz had sought the pre-termination of his notarial commission upon discovering forgery and had exercised earnest efforts to protect the sanctity of his notarized documents. Crucially, on March 8, 2006, the date of the execution of the Deed of Mortgage, Atty. Ortiz was no longer commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila, having had his commission for Manila terminated on June 4, 2005, and subsequently obtaining a commission in Makati from June 21, 2005, to December 31, 2006. Therefore, the evidence did not sufficiently establish his liability. On Issue 2: The Court sustained the IBP Board of Governors' resolution finding respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Arca admitted to notarizing the subject documents but refuted the claims that the Spouses Soriano never appeared before him and that their signatures were forgeries, deeming these claims self-serving. The Court found his defense insufficient, noting that he notarized the documents based on CTCs secured from the City of Manila, despite the Spouses Soriano being residents of Molino, Cavite. Furthermore, he negligently notarized two mortgages on the same property on March 8, 2006 (P60,000.00) and May 8, 2006 (P200,000.00), indicating a pattern of carelessness. His failure to properly ascertain the identities of the parties and the genuineness of their signatures constituted a dereliction of duty. On Issue 3: The Court found the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years to be in line with existing jurisprudence. The Court rejected Atty. Arca's argument that cases like Soriano v. Atty. Basco and Father Aquino v. Atty. Pascua were more applicable, finding that the doctrine enunciated in Tabas v. Atty. Mangibin was more appropriate. In Tabas, the respondent was suspended for one year and disqualified for two years for notarizing a document without ascertaining identities, similar to the present case where Atty. Arca relied on CTCs and failed to verify identities properly. The Court also cited Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, where similar penalties were imposed for notarizing a document without ascertaining the affiant's identity. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, and a notary public must observe basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the disciplinary actions against a lawyer-notary public for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyer was found guilty of negligently notarizing documents without proper verification of the parties' identities, relying on inadequate identification and failing to ensure the documents were the parties' free act and deed. This negligence, compounded by the notarization of multiple mortgages on the same property, led to the imposition of a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years, emphasizing the public trust and responsibility inherent in the office of a notary public.