EN BANC
|
Father
RANHILIO C. AQUINO, LINA M. GARAN, ESTRELLA C. LOZADA, POLICARPIO L.
MABBORANG, DEXTER R. MUNAR, MONICO U. TENEDRO, ANDY R. QUEBRAL, NESTOR T.
RIVERA, EDUARDO C. RICAMORA, ARTHUR G. IBAÑEZ, AURELIO C. CALDEZ and DENU A.
AGATEP, Complainants, - versus - Atty.
EDWIN PASCUA, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 5095 Present: *Puno, C.J. *Quisumbing, **Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, azcuna, TINGA, chico-nazario, velasco, jr., Nachura, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
28, 2007 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
For our resolution is the letter-complaint
dated
In his letter-complaint, Father
Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two
documents committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the
“Affidavit-Complaint” of one Joseph B. Acorda
entering the same as “Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998,
dated
(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized
the “Affidavit-Complaint” of one Remigio B. Domingo
entering the same as “Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated
Father Aquino further alleged that on
June 23 and July 26, 1999,
Atty. Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Tuguegarao, certified that none of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that the last entry therein was Document No.
1200 executed on December 28, 1998; and that, therefore, he could not have
notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998.
In his comment on the
letter-complaint dated
The affidavit-complaints referred to
in the notarized documents were filed by Atty. Pascua
with the Civil Service Commission. Impleaded as respondents therein were Lina
M. Garan and the other above-named complainants. They filed with this Court a “Motion to
Join the Complaint and Reply to Respondent’s Comment.” They maintain that Atty. Pascua’s
omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.[1] On
Thereafter, we referred the case to
the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation, report and recommendation.
On
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the formalities and the basic requirement in the performance of their duties (Realino v. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318).
Under the notarial law, “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, xxx xxx. 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” (Sec. 246, Article V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative Code).
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 is a ground for revocation of his commission (Sec. 249, Article VI).
In the instant case, there is no question that the subject documents allegedly notarized by Atty. Pascua were not recorded in his notarial register.
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff.
The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from true.
The photocopy of
his notarial register shows that the last entry which
he notarized on
This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of inadvertence by Atty. Pascua is the affidavit of his own secretary which is hardly credible since the latter cannot be considered a disinterested witness or party.
Noteworthy also is
the fact that the questioned affidavit of Acorda
(Doc. No. 1213) was submitted only when Domingo’s affidavit (Doc. No. 1214) was
withdrawn in the administrative case filed by Atty. Pascua
against Lina Garan, et
al. with the CSC. This circumstance
lends credence to the submission of herein complainants that Atty. Pascua ante-dated another affidavit-complaint making it
appear as notarized on December 10, 1998 and entered as Document No. 1213. It may not be sheer coincidence then that
both documents are dated
A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession (Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 409).
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Pascua is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any misconduct in his professional or private capacity. The Court has invariably imposed a penalty for notaries public who were found guilty of dishonesty or misconduct in the performance of their duties.
In Villarin v. Sabate, Jr. (325 SCRA 123), respondent lawyer was suspended from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one year for notarizing a document without affiants appearing before him, and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories. The Court held that respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duties as a notary public.
In Arrieta v. Llosa (282 SCRA 248), respondent lawyer who certified under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were dead was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that another infraction would be dealt with more severely. In said case, the Court did not impose the supreme penalty of disbarment, it being the respondent’s first offense.
In Maligsa v. Cabanting (272 SCRA 409), respondent lawyer was disbarred from the practice of law, after being found guilty of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The Court considered the seriousness of the offense and his previous misconduct for which he was suspended for six months from the practice of law.
It appearing that this is the first offense of Atty. Pascua, a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months may be considered enough penalty for him as a lawyer. Considering that his offense is also a ground for revocation of notarial commission, the same should also be imposed upon him.
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully recommended that the notarial
commission of Atty. EDWIN V. PASCUA, if still existing, be REVOKED and that he
be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.”[3]
After a close review of the records
of this case, we resolve to adopt the findings of facts and conclusion of law
by the Office of the Bar Confidant. We
find Atty. Pascua guilty of misconduct in the
performance of his duties for failing to register in his Notarial
Register the affidavit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda
and Remigio B. Domingo.
“Misconduct”
generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[4] The term, however, does not necessarily
imply corruption or criminal intent.[5]
The penalty
to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed by a lawyer is addressed to
the sound discretion of the Court. In Arrieta v. Llosa,[6] wherein Atty. Joel A. Llosa
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were already
dead, this Court held that such wrongful act “constitutes misconduct” and thus
imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, this being his first administrative offense. Also, in Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[7]
we revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Mario G.
Ramos and suspended him from the practice of law for six months for violating the Notarial Law
in not registering in his notarial book the Deed of
Absolute Sale he notarized. In Mondejar v. Rubia,[8]
however, a lesser penalty of one month
suspension from the practice of law was imposed on Atty. Vivian G. Rubia for making a false declaration in the document she
notarized.
In the
present case, considering that this is Atty. Pascua’s
first offense, we believe that the imposition of a three-month suspension from
the practice of law upon him is in order. Likewise, since his
offense is a ground for revocation of notarial
commission, the same should also be imposed upon him.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua
is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
(On official leave) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
|
(On official leave) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Acting Chief Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
* On official leave.
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per
Special Order No. 478 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 18-20.
[2]
[3] Records, pp. 34-38.
[4] Salazar v. Limeta,
A.M. No. P-04-1908,
[5] Salazar v. Limeta, id., citing State Ex Rel Asbaugh v. Bahr, 40 N.E. 2d 677, 680, 68 Ohio App. 308.