SECOND DIVISION
HILDA
D. TABAS,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5602
February 3, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
BONIFACIO
B. MANGIBIN,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:cralaw:red
In a Verified Complaint[1]
for disbarment filed with this Court on January 30, 2002, complainant
Hilda
D. Tabas sought the disbarment of respondent, Atty. Bonifacio B.
Mangibin,
for allegedly having committed forgery.chanrobles virtual law library
Complainant avers that
on March 5, 2001, a certain Anastacia Galvan from Sta. Monica, Bauang,
La Union, mortgaged to her a piece of real property to secure a
P48,000.00
loan. The deed of mortgage of real property[2]
was duly registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of the
Province
of La Union and annotated in the tax declaration of the property.[3]
On October 17, 2001,
however, a certain Lilia Castillejos, falsely representing herself as
complainant,
appeared before respondent and asked him to prepare a discharge of the
said mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.[4]
After having prepared
the questioned discharge of real estate mortgage,[5]
and without asking Lilia Castillejos for anything other than a
Community
Tax Certificate (CTC), respondent notarized the said deed.
Subsequently,
the mortgagor, Anastacia Galvan, mortgaged the subject property again,
this time with the Rural Bank of Naguilian (LU), Inc.[6]
Complainant further
avers that after she learned of the cancellation, she promptly informed
respondent that her signature in the “Discharge of Real Estate
Mortgage”
was a forgery. However, respondent did nothing to help her and
even
threatened to file a counter suit against her should she file a case
against
him.[7]
In his Answer,[8]
respondent admits that the discharge of real estate mortgage is a
forgery,
but denies liability for the falsification under a claim of good faith.[9]
Respondent avers that he did not know Lilia Castillejos’ fraudulent
intent.
He also submits that he cannot be faulted for simply relying on the CTC
bearing complainant’s name, which Lilia Castillejos presented to
him.
He argues that it is beyond the “realm of his duty” and scope of work
to
investigate the identity of persons appearing before him and cites that
as a matter of routine, he normally requires only the CTCs of persons
appearing
before him.[10]
Respondent also asserts that he does not have any available means of
ascertaining
the real identities of persons appearing before him.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
On August 7, 2002,[12]
the Court referred the instant case to the IBP for investigation,
report,
and recommendation.cralaw:red
Subsequently, the IBP
required complainant to file her reply by Order issued on October 14,
2002.[13]
In her reply dated November 7, 2002,[14]
complainant argues that respondent’s averment that he did not discover
that Lilia Castillejos falsely represented herself could only mean that
respondent knowingly participated in the falsification.[15]
On December 14, 2002,
the IBP issued Resolution No. XV-2002-627,[16]
which adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner,
warning respondent to be more careful in the preparation of legal
documents
so that similar incidents may be avoided in the future.cralaw:red
Following the submission
of the IBP Resolution with the Court, the Court required the Office of
the Bar Confidant to submit its comment on the IBP Resolution on March
19, 2003.[17]
In her comment, Bar Confidant Atty. Ma. Cristina Layusa found
respondent
liable for gross negligence in the discharge of his duties as a notary
public and recommended that the Court impose upon respondent a graver
penalty
of suspension of one (1) year[18]
from the practice of law.cralaw:red
The issue for our resolution
now is whether respondent is liable for violating the Notarial Law for
which his commission as notary public should be revoked and he should
be
suspended also from the practice of law.chanrobles virtual law library
Time and again, the
Court has emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary
act.[19]
It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
who
are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It
converts
a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court
without
further proof of its authenticity.[20]
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.cralaw:red
For this reason, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance
of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity
of public instruments would be undermined. A notary public should
not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the
very
same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest
to
the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. 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.[21]
The circumstances in
this case indubitably show that respondent did not take even ordinary
precautions
required in the premises. In the acknowledgment portion of the
document,
there is the phrase “Before me, personally appeared Hilda A. Tabas,
known
to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing
document.”[22]
Respondent thereby attested that he knows Hilda A. Tabas, whose name
appeared
in the acknowledgment, and that she personally appeared before
him.
Indeed, it was his duty to ascertain the identity of the person
appearing
before him and to make sure that she is indeed Hilda A. Tabas.
Considering
the ease with which CTCs may be obtained and the legal effect that
notarization
brings to the deed of discharge of real estate mortgage that he himself
prepared, respondent should have requested other forms of
identification
or asked questions to ascertain her identity.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent’s conduct
showed serious lack of due care in the performance of his duties as a
notary
public. Because of his carelessness, respondent failed to notice
the glaring difference in the signature of mortgagee in the deed of
real
estate mortgage from her purported signature in the questioned
discharge
of real estate mortgage.cralaw:red
It was respondent who
prepared the questioned discharge of real estate mortgage, which he
subsequently
notarized. Hence he had adequate opportunity to verify the
identity
of Lilia Castillejos. Not only did he have to interview her
regarding
her personal circumstances, but also he had to interview her regarding
the background of the deed of real estate mortgage to be
cancelled.
Apparently, respondent merely took the word of Lilia Castillejos that
she
was Hilda Tabas and did not realize the need to require her to present
other forms of identification. Such neglect is inexcusable.cralaw:red
Further, by notarizing
the Discharge of Real Estate Mortgage without ascertaining the identity
of the signatory, respondent lawyer acted with reckless disregard of
his
professional duties and responsibilities. He caused grave injury
to the complainant. He also undermined the confidence of the
public
on notarial documents. Hence, he breached Canon I of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote
respect
for the law and legal processes as well as to uphold the Constitution
and
obey the laws of the land.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, for violation
of
the Notarial Law and the Code
of Professional Responsibility, respondent ATTY. BONIFACIO B.
MANGIBIN’s
notarial commission is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment
as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law also for a period of one (1) year, effective
immediately.
He is DIRECTED to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to
enable the Court to determine when his suspension shall have taken
effect.chanrobles virtual law library
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of
this
Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of the respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2]
Id. at 1, 5.
[3]
Id. at 1, 6.
[4]
Id. at 1-2.
[5]
Id. at 7.
[6]
Id. at 3.
[7]
Id. at 2.
[8]
Id. at 14-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Id. at 17-18.
[10]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id. at 16-18.
[12]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id. at 23.
[14]
Id. at 24-25.
[15]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Id. at 28.
[17]
Id. at 38.
[18]
Id. at 41-44-A.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Joson v. Baltazar, A.C. No. 575, 14 February 1991, 194 SCRA 114, 119.
[20]
Nadayag v. Grageda, A.C. No. 3232, 27 September 1994, 237 SCRA 202, 206.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Aquino v. Manese, A.C. No. 4958, 3 April 2003, p. 6; See Coronado
v. Felongco, A.C. No. 2611, 15 November 2000, 344 SCRA 565, 568-569.
[22]
Rollo, p. 7. |