Montinola v. Rubrico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felix C. Montinola III, one of the surviving legal heirs of the late Felix Montinola, Sr., received a letter from Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr. demanding that he either vacate the lot where his house is situated or buy the shares of his co-heirs. Attached to the letter was a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, notarized by Atty. Juan T. Rubrico, which the complainant asserted was void ab initio for not being signed by all parties. The complainant demanded a certification from Atty. Rubrico regarding the deed's preparation and notarization. Procedural History: Atty. Rubrico initially issued a certification stating he had not notarized the deed, attributing it to his secretary's forgery. However, he later retracted this and admitted to notarizing the deed without the presence of all signatories as an accommodation to Atty. Daisy D. Montinola. This led the complainant to file a petition for the revocation of Atty. Rubrico's notarial license and disciplinary actions against Atty. Rubrico, Atty. Montinola, and Atty. Tan, Jr. before the Executive Judge of the RTC, Bacolod City. The RTC revoked Atty. Rubrico's notarial commission, prohibited him from being commissioned for three months, and warned Atty. Montinola, while dismissing the case against Atty. Tan, Jr. and the other heirs. The complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which treated it as an administrative complaint and referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Petition: The complainant assailed the RTC's resolution and order, asserting that Atty. Rubrico violated the Notarial Law by notarizing the deed without the presence of all signatories, and that Atty. Tan, Atty. Montinola, and the heirs of Felix, Sr. violated Section 1(c), Rule XII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's findings, recommending suspension for Atty. Rubrico, a stern warning for Atty. Montinola, and dismissal for Atty. Tan, Jr. The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Juan T. Rubrico violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate without the personal appearance of all signatories. Whether Atty. Daisy D. Montinola and Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr. violated Section 1(c), Rule XII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling
The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Juan T. Rubrico from the practice of law for three (3) months, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. Atty. Daisy D. Montinola was sternly warned that a similar transgression would be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr. was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found Atty. Rubrico administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He admitted to notarizing the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate without requiring the personal appearance of the signatories. Instead, he relied on an assurance from a secretary that the document was duly authenticated. The Court emphasized that Section 1 of Act No. 2103 and Section 2, Rule IV(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandate that a notary public must personally know or identify the signatory through competent evidence of identity and that the signatory must be present at the time of notarization. The Court cited previous cases where similar violations led to revocation of notarial commissions and suspension from the practice of law, such as in Angeles, et al. v. Atty. Ibañez, Gonzales v. Atty. Bañares, and Spouses Zialcita v. Atty. Latras. The Court rejected Atty. Rubrico's defense of trust and accommodation towards a fellow lawyer as justification for his failure to comply with the rules, underscoring the public interest inherent in notarization. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr. for lack of merit. The Court found that Atty. Tan, Jr. was merely engaged by Atty. Montinola to prepare and send a demand letter to the complainant regarding the estate. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate was merely handed to him by Atty. Montinola to serve as an attachment to the letter. The Court held that writing and sending a demand letter, in itself, does not constitute a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice or an act aimed at defying the law or lessening confidence in the legal system. Regarding Atty. Daisy D. Montinola, while no malice was found, the Court sternly warned her to be more careful and circumspect in her dealings with fellow members of the Bar. As a member of the Bar, she is expected to know that the subject deed could not be notarized without the presence of all signatories, and her involvement, even in good faith, necessitates a warning to prevent future transgressions.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the act of notarization is impressed with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Consequently, lawyers commissioned as notaries public must strictly observe the basic requirements of their duties, including the personal appearance and proper identification of signatories. Failure to do so, even if motivated by trust or accommodation towards a fellow lawyer, constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting disciplinary action.