SECOND DIVISION
ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE
ROSALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This complaint
for disbarment was filed in behalf of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de
Rosales by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against respondent Atty.
Mario G. Ramos for violation of Act No. 2711 of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917, Title IV, Ch. 11, otherwise know as the Notarial Law,
particularly Secs. 245 and 246 thereof.
In September
1990 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de
Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the
Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot
No. 1-B-4-H in her name.
The lot measures 112 square meters and is located at
the back of Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25 November 1990 Rosalinda sold this lot
to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she
asked her brother Manuel to return her title he refused.
On 22 October
1990 Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented
the affidavit to the Register of Deeds of Manila.
On 3 September
1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title to the property
was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5 September 1990. The document was notarized by respondent
Atty. Mario G. Ramos on 1 October 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as
Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed any
deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
On 3 September
1991 Rosalinda filed with the NBI a complaint for falsification of public
document against her brother Manuel.
The NBI invited respondent Atty. Ramos for questioning. The complaint alleged among others that on
12 September 1991 Atty. Mario G. Ramos executed an affidavit before the NBI
admitting that when Manuel presented the purported Deed of Absolute Sale
to him for notarization, he (Atty. Ramos) found some defects in the document
and that complainant Rosalinda was not around.
The NBI Questioned Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's
signature appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of her
genuine signature, and found that the signature in the purported Deed of
Absolute Sale and her genuine signatures were not written by one and the
same person.
On 5 October
1992 the NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila with the recommendation that Manuel and Atty. Ramos be prosecuted for Falsification
of Public Document under Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171 of The Revised
Penal Code, and that Atty. Ramos be additionally charged with violation of
the Notarial Law.
The NBI also
transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) photocopies of the NBI investigation report and its annexes,
and a verified complaint[1] for disbarment signed by
Rosalinda. The CBD received the
records on 5 October 1992. On the same
date, the CBD through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez directed respondent to
submit an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Respondent
admitted in his Answer[2] that he had affixed his signature
on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter the document in his
Notarial Registry Book. He also
admitted executing before the NBI on 12 September 1991 an affidavit regarding
the matter. Respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint since according to him he only inadvertently signed
the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was
procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence,
claiming that he simply relied on the assurances of Manuel that the document
would not be used for purposes other than a loan between brother and sister,
and that he affixed his signature thereon with utmost good faith and without
intending to obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
The CBD set the
case for hearing on 3 March 2000, 28 April 2000, 16 June 2000 and 5 October
2000. Complainant never appeared. The records show that the notices sent to
her address at 1497 Fabie Street, Paco, Manila, were returned unclaimed.[3]
On 26 January
2002 the IBP Board of Governors approved the report and recommendation of the
CBD through Commissioner Fernandez that the case against respondent be
dismissed in view of complainant's failure to prosecute and for lack of
evidence on record to substantiate the complaint.[4] The Investigating Commissioner
found that the notices sent to complainant were returned unclaimed with the
annotation "moved out," and
that she did not leave any forwarding address, and neither did she come to the
CBD to inquire about the status of her case.
From these actuations, he concluded that complainant had lost interest
in the further prosecution of this case,[5] and so recommended its dismissal.
We cannot wholly
agree with the findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. It is clear from the
pleadings before us that respondent violated the Notarial Law in failing to
register in his notarial book the deed of absolute sale he notarized, which
fact respondent readily admitted.
The Notarial Law
is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary public. It requires him to keep a notarial register
where he shall record all his official acts as notary,[6] and specifies what information with
regard to the notarized document should be entered therein.[7] Failure to perform this duty
results in the revocation of his commission as notary public.[8]
The importance
attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.[9] Notarization converts a private
document into a public document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity.[10] A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be
able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended
to a private instrument.[11]
For this reason
notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.[12] Otherwise, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.[13] Hence a notary public should not
notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein.[14] The purpose of this requirement is
to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act
and deed.[15]
The notary
public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the necessary
information regarding the document or instrument notarized and retain a copy of
the document presented to him for acknowledgment and certification especially
when it is a contract.[16] The notarial registry is a record
of the notary public's official acts.
Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered
public documents. If the document or
instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it
therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really
notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim
made based on this document.
Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the
failure of the notary public to record
the document in his notarial
registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was
notarized when in fact it was not.
We take note of
respondent's admission in his Answer that he had affixed his signature in the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale but he did not enter it in his notarial
registry. This is clearly in violation
of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.
Respondent
alleges that he merely signed the Deed of Absolute Sale inadvertently
and that his signature was procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or
excusable negligence as he relied on the assurances of Manuel A. Bernardo, a kababayan
from Pampanga, that the document would not be used for any illegal purpose.
We cannot honor,
much less give credit to this allegation.
That respondent notarized the document out of sympathy for his kababayan
is not a legitimate excuse. It is
appalling that respondent did away with the basics of notarial procedure in
order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and client. In doing so, he displayed a decided lack of
respect for the solemnity of an oath in a notarial document. He also exhibited his clear ignorance of the
importance of the office of a notary public.
Not only did he violate the Notarial Law, he also did so without
thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
The principal
function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When
a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document
under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the
solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to
authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution
and delivery.[17] Where the notary public is a
lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.[18] Failing in this, he must accept the
consequences of his unwarranted actions.
From his
admissions we find that Atty. Mario G. Ramos failed to exercise the due
diligence required of him in the performance of the duties of notary
public. We do not agree however that
his negligence should merit disbarment, which is the most severe form of
disciplinary sanction. Disbarment
should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his
serious misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar. Removal from the bar should not really be
decreed when any punishment less severe
- reprimand, temporary suspension or fine - would accomplish the end
desired.[19] Under the circumstances, imposing
sanctions decreed under the Notarial Law and suspension from the practice of
law would suffice.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the
observance of the Notarial Law, the commission of respondent Atty. Mario G.
Ramos as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED and thereafter Atty.
Ramos should be DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment to the office of Notary Public.
Respondent Atty.
Mario G. Ramos is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months effective immediately. He is
DIRECTED to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to enable it to
determine when his suspension shall have taken effect.
The Clerk of
Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this Decision for
the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of
this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing,
J., on
official business.
[1] Records, pp. 2-5.
[2] Id, pp.
37-45.
[3] Id, pp.
48, 50, 53, and 58.
[4] Id, p. 60.
[5] Id, p. 62.
[6] The Notarial Law, Sec. 245. Notarial Register. - Every notary public shall keep a
register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of
all his official acts as notary x x x x”
[7] Id; Sec.
246. Matters to be entered therein.
- The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature
of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person
executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any,
to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the
instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection
therewith, and when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy
thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a
brief description of the substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a
consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the
one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages
of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries x x x
x "
[8] Id; Sec.
249. Grounds for revocation of
commission. - The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary
public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be
sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission x x x x (b) The failure
of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register
touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law x x x x "
[9] Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912
(1997).
[10] Sec. 30, Rule 132, Rules of Court.
[11] Joson v. Baltazar, Adm. Case No. 575, 14
February 1991, 194 SCRA 114, 119.
[12] Nunga v,
Viray, Adm. Case No. 4758, 30 April 1999, 306 SCRA 487, 491.
[13] Arrieta v. Llosa, Adm. Case No. 4369, 28
November 1997, 282 SCRA 248, citing Ramirez v. Ner, 21 SCRA 207 (1967).
[14] Villarin v.
Sabate Jr., Adm. Case No. 3324, 9 February 2000, 325 SCRA 123, 128.
[15] Flores v. Chua, 306 Phil 465 (1999).
[16] See Note 7.
[17] Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 (1917).
[18] See Note 15.
[19] In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA
562, 602.