EN BANC
OCTAVIO
J. TRAYA,
JR.,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.4595
February 6, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
FRANCISCO
M. VILLAMOR,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
In a Sworn Letter dated
May 22, 1996 addressed to then Chief Justice Andres A. Narvasa,
complainant
Octavio J. Traya, Jr., Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, brought
attention
to an affidavit purportedly executed by one Rolando de la Cruz which
was
spurious but which was nevertheless notarized by Atty. Francisco M.
Villamor,
respondent herein, who, it was informed, had previously been
reprimanded
and admonished by the Supreme Court in Realino v. Villamor[1]
in connection with the discharge of his notarial duties.cralaw:red
From the record of this
case, it is gathered that one Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya filed
an application for building permit in connection with the renovation of
a building situated on a lot owned by her brother Rolando C. de la Cruz
(de la Cruz). One of the documents required in the processing of the
application
was an affidavit to be executed by the lot owner. Since de la Cruz was
a resident abroad, an affidavit was prepared wherein it was made to
appear
that he was a resident of Loyonsawang, Abuyog, Leyte; that he was the
owner
of the lot whereon the building subject of the application for the
issuance
of a building permit was situated; and that he was executing the
affidavit
“to attest to the veracity of the abovementioned facts thereby
certifying
(sic) the requirements of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
relative
to the application for Locational Clearance/Certificate of Zoning
Compliance.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent notarized
the purported affidavit of de la Cruz who was residing abroad; hence,
the
letter-complaint of complainant.cralaw:red
Acting on the letter-complaint,
this Court required respondent to comment thereon.cralaw:red
In respondent’s comment
denominated as “Answer,” he proferred the following explanation:
In the afternoon, at
more or less 2:00 P.M. of Jan. 29, 1996, a Chinese mestizo appeared in
the law office of herein respondent. After a customary courtesy, he
made
known his purpose, stating that he wanted his affidavit (Annex “A”)
notarized,
which was being handed simultaneously to the herein respondent.
Respondent
after briefly perusing the same, asked who Rolando de la Cruz was, and
the chinese mestizo, declared that he was the one. Then respondent
asked
if the signature over the space for the affiant was his, and he
affirmed
the same as his. Then respondent asked for the production of his Res.
Certificate,
but he said, he did not bother to bring the same along with him anymore
as, he has already indicated his Serial number, in the jurat portion
together
with the date of issue and place of issue. Finally, respondent asked
him
if he understood the written contents of his affidavit, and he affirmed
that the did (sic) understand because, he was applying for a clearance
with the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator for the
renovation/repair
of the second floor of his building. And respondent having become fully
satisfied already with all the pertinent matters relevant to the
affidavit
to be notarized, without any more much ado, notarized the same.[2]
(Underscoring supplied.)
The case was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and
report.
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline noted that the “main defense” of
respondent
was that complainant filed the case against him because he (respondent)
filed cases against complainant before the Ombudsman.cralaw:red
Resolving in the affirmative
the issue of whether respondent “violated the legal ethics of a notary
public,” Commissioner Wifredo E. J. E. Reyes of the IBP Committee on
Bar
Discipline, by Report and Recommendation dated April 26, 2002,
recommended
that respondent’s commission as notary public be suspended for one (1)
year.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Resolution No. XV-2002-409,
the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve, with
modification,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, it
finding
that respondent failed to observe the proper procedure in determining
if
a person appearing before him is the same person who executed the
document
presented for notarization.cralaw:red
The IBP Board accordingly
resolved to suspend respondent as notary public and disqualify him from
appointment as notary public for one (1) year from receipt of notice of
decision.cralaw:red
In the earlier mentioned
case of Realino v. Villamor[3]
of which herein respondent was the respondent, this Court stressed its
repeated pronouncement that it is the duty of the notarial officer to
demand
that the document presented to him for notarization should be signed in
his presence, for “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.”[4]
By respondent’s admission,
the affidavit was already signed by the purported affiant at the time
it
was presented to him for notarization. Respondent thus failed to heed
his
duty as a notary public to demand that the document for notarization be
signed in his presence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Also by respondent’s
admission, when the affidavit was brought to him, it already bore the
Residence
Certificate Number of the “affiant” which residence certificate number
turned out to be that of de la Cruz’s brother in law, Benjamin Catalya,
husband of his sister Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya. Where a
lawyer
as a notary makes it appear in the acknowledgment or jurat of a
contract
that the affiant exhibited to him a Residence Certificate when, in
fact,
he did not, the notary is guilty of misconduct.[5]
Such misrepresentation is unquestionably censurable and justifies
disciplinary
action against him as a member of the bar and as a notary public. For
he
violated the mandate in his attorney’s oath to “obey the law” and “do
no
falsehood.”[6]
A lawyer commissioned
as notary public x x x is mandated to subscribe to the
sacred
duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public
policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost
respect
of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is
sacrosanct.
Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein,
he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion.[7]
By thus making it appear
in the jurat that the “affiant” exhibited to him his residence
certificate
when in fact he did not, respondent is guilty of misconduct.cralaw:red
Respondent’s imputation
of ill-motive on complainant’s filing of the case against him owing to,
so he claims, his filing of cases against complainant before the Office
of the Ombudsman is immaterial to the merits of the present case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent having previously
been reprimanded and warned also in connection with his duties as a
notary
public, despite which he has demonstrated a clear and blatant disregard
thereof, he should now be faulted strictly.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, ATTY. FRANCISCO
M. VILLAMOR is guilty of gross misconduct in his notarial practice.
Accordingly,
he is perpetually DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
public.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J.,
on official
leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
87 SCRA 318 (1978).
[2]
Rollo at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 322, citing Ramirez v. Ner, 21 SCRA 207 (1978).
[5]
Vda. de Guerrero v. Hernando, Adm. Case. No. 707, 68 SCRA 76 (1975).
[6]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., 325 SCRA 123, 128 (2000). |