Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
DOLORES L.
DELA CRUZ, A.C. No. 7781
MILAGROS L.
PRINCIPE,
NARCISA L.
FAUSTINO, Present:
JORGE V.
LEGASPI, and
JUANITO V.
LEGASPI, QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
Complainants, CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
- versus - BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR.,
Respondent. September
12, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In their complaint for disbarment
against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros
L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged
that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L.
Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their
signatures in this document were forged; (2) they did not appear and
acknowledge the document on
According to complainants, respondent had made
untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document
when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants “personally came
and appeared before him” and that they affixed their signatures on the document
in his presence. In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled
their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased parents’
property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public Works and
Highways.
In his answer, respondent admitted
having a hand in the preparation of the document in question, but admitted
having indeed notarized it. He explained that “he notarized [the] document in
good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that
the signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the document
were true and correct.” Navarro would
not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of,
each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability for any damage
or injury considering that the falsified document had been revoked and canceled.
In his Report and Recommendation, the
Investigating Commissioner of the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), found the following as established: (1) the
questioned document bore the signatures and community tax certificates of, and
purports to have been executed by, complainants and Navarro; (2) respondent
indeed notarized the questioned document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did
not appear and acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4)
respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarro’s representation
that the signatures appearing and community tax certificates were true and
correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain if the purported signatures of
each of the complainants appearing in the document belonged to them.
The Commission concluded that with respondent’s
admission of having notarized the
document in question against the factual backdrop as thus established, a clear
case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had been committed when
he stated in the Acknowledgment that:
Before
me, on this 16th day of
x x
x x
who are known to me
to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and they
acknowledge to me that the same is their own free act and deed. x x x
For the stated infraction, the
Commission recommended, conformably with the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,[1] that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year; that his
notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified
for reappointment as notary public for two (2) years. On
We agree with the recommendation of
the Commission and the premises holding it together. It bears reiterating that
notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal
on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who
executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the
truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or
the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be considered authentic if
the acknowledgment is made in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.[2]
Without the appearance of the person
who actually executed the document in question, notaries public would be unable
to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or deed.[3] Furthermore,
notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the
instrument has acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to
enter its number, place, and date of issue as part of certification.[4] Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice[5] now
requires a party to the instrument to present competent evidence of identity.
Sec. 12 provides:
Sec.
12. Competent Evidence of Identity.––The phrase “competent evidence of
identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a)
at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited
to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID,
voter’s ID, Barangay certification,
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,
certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons
(NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development certification [as amended
by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008]; or
(b)
the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom
is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
One last note. Lawyers commissioned
as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public
instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.[6] A
notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is
for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in
notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized
documents will be eroded.
WHEREFORE, for
breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Jose R.
Dimaano, Jr., if still existing, is REVOKED.
He is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision, with
WARNING that a repetition of the
same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the
Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered into respondent’s
personal record.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice