SAJID
D. AGAGON, A.C. No. 5510
Complainant,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
ATTY. ARTEMIO F.
BUSTAMANTE,
Respondent. Promulgated:
December
20, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed the instant
administrative case against respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante charging the
latter with malpractice and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged that respondent acted as
Notary Public to the “Deed of Sale” allegedly executed by and between Dominador
Panglao and Alessandro Panglao. However,
upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
In
his Comment, respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared the Deed of
Sale. However, he claimed that the
parties merely dictated to him their Community Tax Certificate Numbers; that he
inadvertently failed to include the Deed of Sale in the report submitted to the
Office of the Clerk of Court; that it was pure inadvertence that the document
that was reported and included in the report to the Office of the Clerk of
Court and which bore the document number assigned to the Deed of Sale was an
Affidavit executed by Teofilo Malapit.
The
case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
In
the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa, the
following findings were made:
On
Sometime
in the last week of August, Alessandro Panglao, through his lawyer, herein
Respondent, filed before the NLRC in NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-12-0672 an “Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession of
Third Party Claimant” claiming that the levied properties were sold to him
by Dominador Panglao and that the same are exempt from levy. Alessandro Panglao desired to establish
himself as a third party to the case since the respondent in the labor case was
Dominador Panglao, as owner of his own meatshop before it was sold. Attached to this Affidavit is a supposed Deed of
Sale dated October 6, 2000 executed by Dominador Panglao and Alessandro Panglao
and notarized by herein Respondent. The Deed of Sale
has the notarial series of: Doc. No. 375, Page No. 76, Book No. XXXIII, Series
of 2000.
In
a bid to verify the authenticity of the Deed of Sale, Complainant verified with
the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC,
Moreover,
on
x
x x x[1]
Based on the foregoing,
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that:
Respondent
will have to be held accountable for GROSS NEGLIGENCE as a Notary Public. While there is no basis to say that
falsification was committed, Respondent’s negligence constitutes in the a)
notarization of a document where the affiants have no valid and existing CTCs;
and b) failure to include the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Reports.
That such facts did occur are beyond dispute. The only question that remains is whether
Respondent’s excuses can be accepted as satisfactory that would thus classify
his acts as “excusable negligence.”
There is nothing on record that can excuse Respondent or that can
justify his lapses. That the Respondent
did not ask to see the CTC of the affiants and that the affiants simply
dictated to him their CTC numbers out of memory is an unacceptable excuse and
explanation. This is gross
negligence. In fact, it is funny. How many people in this country can recite
their CTC numbers from memory? Besides,
how many people would spend their time memorizing their CTC number? And yet, Respondent accepted this suspicious
behavior without question. This is not
to say that no person in this world would want to memorize their CTC
number. Only that such an exceptional
circumstance should have raised Respondent’s suspicions. As it turned out, the CTC numbers were merely
plucked out of thin air by the affiants.
In other words, Respondent was fooled by his own clients.
Respondent’s
failure to include the Deed of Sale in his notarial report is another act of
gross negligence. This negligence is
highlighted by the fact that said Deed of Sale was subsequently introduced into
a quasi-judicial proceeding when it was attached to Alessandro Panglao’s “Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession of
Third Party Claimant”. Its
non-inclusion in the notarial report is inexcusable and for which only the
lawyer himself, and not his secretary, should be held to account.
The combination of these circumstances casts justified doubts upon the
due execution and notarization of the Deed of Sale.
Accordingly,
Respondent should be held guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE as a Notary Public.
For the foregoing
infractions, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be
reprimanded for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and his
notarial commission suspended for one (1) year.
The Board of Governors
of the IBP adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified
the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year
and revocation and suspension of respondent’s notarial commission for two (2)
years.
We adopt the findings of
the IBP. However, we find the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and
suspension of respondent’s notarial commission for one (1) year more
appropriate under the circumstances.
There is no doubt that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial
Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Report
and for failing to require the parties to the deed to exhibit their respective
community tax certificates. Doubts were
cast as to the existence and due execution of the subject deed, thus
undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and
diminishing public confidence in notarial documents[2]
since the subject deed was introduced as an annex to the Affidavit of
Title/Right of Possession of Third Party Claimant relative to NLRC Case No.
RAB-CAR-12-0672-00.
A notary public is
empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the
acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the
notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as
affixed on a document. The notarial seal
converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented
as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as
an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.
As early as Panganiban v. Borromeo,
we held that notaries public must inform themselves of the facts which they
intend to certify and to take no part in illegal transactions. They must guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements.[3]
It cannot be
overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or
routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.
It is through the act of notarization that a private document is
converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of
preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries
public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in
the performance of their duties.
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined.[4]
Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. Moreover, the Notarial Law
and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice[5]
require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his
Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any dereliction or act which constitutes
good cause for the revocation of commission or imposition of administrative
sanction. Unfortunately, respondent
failed in both respects.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante is GUILTY of
violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His
notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year. He is, likewise, SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for six (6) months effective immediately. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to
enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.
Let copies of this
decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as member of the Bar. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the
Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice