Rigon v. Subia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Virgilio C. Rigon, Jr. (Virgilio, Jr.), authorized by a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from the heirs of Placido Rigon, filed an Affidavit Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Eric P. Subia (Atty. Subia). The complaint alleged that Atty. Subia notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a portion of a land owned by Placido. Virgilio, Jr. claimed that Atty. Subia made it appear that Placido and his wife, Telesfora, were signatories to the deed, when in fact, both had died long before its execution (Placido on February 5, 1940, and Telesfora on December 8, 1961). Furthermore, the subject Deed was allegedly recorded under a docket number in Atty. Subia's notarial register that actually pertained to a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons, not the Deed of Absolute Sale. This fraudulent deed led to the transfer of title of a portion of the subject land to Pete Gerald L. Javier. Procedural History: Atty. Subia filed a Comment, denying the allegations and claiming his signature was falsified and copied. He pointed out that the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of Cauayan City, Isabela, confirmed that the docket number in question belonged to a Joint Affidavit, not the Deed of Absolute Sale. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the proceedings, Virgilio, Jr. passed away. His father, Virgilio B. Rigon, Sr., informed the Court and expressed intent to continue the case. Atty. Subia argued that the case should be dismissed due to Virgilio, Jr.'s death and raised issues regarding the SPA's validity, noting it named heirs of Cornelio Rigon, not Placido, as principals. The Petition: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Subia liable for violating the Notarial Rules, recommending the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings. The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Subia liable for violating the Notarial Rules.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Subia violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether the death of the complainant and alleged defects in the Special Power of Attorney warrant the dismissal of the disbarment case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP and found Atty. Eric P. Subia guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Consequently, Atty. Subia was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He was warned that repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely. The suspension and prohibition were to take effect immediately upon receipt of the Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Atty. Subia violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court held that Atty. Subia violated Sections 6 and 8 of Rule II, and Sections 2 and 5(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules. These provisions mandate that a notary public must personally verify the appearance and identity of signatories and ensure that the document is signed in their presence, and that the notarial certificate is complete. In this case, Atty. Subia's notarial seal and signature appeared on a Deed of Absolute Sale where the vendors, Placido and Telesfora Rigon, were already deceased at the time of its purported execution. The Court found that Atty. Subia failed to perform these essential duties. The Court also noted the discrepancy in the notarial register entry, which further indicated a breach of protocol. The Court emphasized that the act of notarization is imbued with public interest, requiring a high degree of diligence from notaries public. On the issue of whether the death of the complainant and alleged defects in the Special Power of Attorney warrant the dismissal of the disbarment case: The Court ruled that the death of the complainant, Virgilio, Jr., did not hinder the proceedings. Disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are considered sui generis and aim to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, not to provide private redress. The Court may even initiate such proceedings motu proprio. Furthermore, the Court found that the alleged defect in the SPA, where the principals were indicated as heirs of Cornelio Rigon instead of Placido, did not warrant dismissal. The Court cited Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which allows for disbarment proceedings to be instituted by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the IBP upon a verified complaint, provided it clearly states the facts and is supported by affidavits and documents. The Court found that Virgilio, Jr. had complied with these requisites, and the case could proceed despite the SPA's technical flaw.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is held to a high degree of diligence and responsibility in the performance of their duties, as the act of notarization is imbued with substantial public interest. The Court affirmed that a notary public cannot escape liability for the improper notarization of a document, even if they claim their signature or seal was forged, if they fail to present clear and convincing proof of such forgery and demonstrate negligence in the safekeeping of their notarial seal and register. Such negligence can lead to severe disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.