THIRD DIVISION
ZENAIDA
GONZALES
SERZO,
Complainant,
A.
C.
No. 6040
(Formerly CBD 02-972)
July 30, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
ROMEO M.
FLORES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
A Complaint for Disbarment[1]
subject of the present decision was filed by Zenaida Gonzales Serzo
(complainant)
against Atty. Romeo M. Flores (respondent) arising from his
notarization
of a November 28, 2000 Deed of Absolute Sale[2]
covering a 7,500 square meter parcel of land situated in Cardona,
Rizal,
owned by complainant’s father Neybardo Gonzales y Villaluna (Gonzales)
who had earlier died on October 16, 2000.cralaw:red
In the Deed of Absolute
Sale notarized by respondent, the deceased Gonzales purportedly sold
the
land to one Yolanda dela Cruz (Yolanda) whose signature, as well as
that
of Gonzales, appears thereon. Below the signatures of Gonzales
and
Yolanda appear the following entries:chanrobles virtual law library
With my marital consent
by: A. G. Laureno (Signed)
Maura Villarina
(daughter [of Gonzales])
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
1. Eufemia Gonzales (Signed)
2.
Redentor Panguito (Signed)
(witness)
(witness)[3]chanrobles virtual law library
Gonzales’ wife Maura
Villarina who, as indicated in the above- quoted entries appearing in
the
deed, purportedly gave her marital consent thereto, had as one of the
date
of the execution of the deed long been dead.chanrobles virtual law library
Aside from the present
disbarment complaint, the execution of the document spawned the filing
of a criminal charge[4]
for falsification of public document against complainant’s sister
Amelia
Gonzales Laureno who signed as “AGLaureno” in the document on behalf of
their mother Maura Villarina, as well as against the alleged vendee
Yolanda
and the two witnesses.cralaw:red
Respondent does not
deny having notarized the document. In paragraph 10 of his
Answer[5]
to the Complaint, he alleges that while the parties to the document,
“especially
[the vendee] Yolanda dela Cruz who is known or familiar to the staff of
respondent[‘s] office, had previous records of executed instruments and
documents relating to the land subject of the complaint x
x
x , the person of the VENDOR may have not been disclosed to the
respondent
and instead, confused respondent with another person purporting to be
the
vendor, thus, faking the presence of the VENDOR and allowing the entry
of said date, November 28, 2000 as the date of acknowledgment.”
Respondent asserts though
that it has been his practice “to ask the presence of the person of the
parties in case of contract and the person of the seller in case of a
deed
of sale/absolute sale in accordance with the provisions of the Notarial
Law,” as well as to ask for a document of identification, “usually a
residence
certificate, now community tax certificate, and if they don’t have any
of said paper, respondent requires the parties or the seller to secure
the community tax certificate in the municipality where they are
residents
or at least present identification card, passport, driver’s license and
the like.”chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent, in a discordant
note, alleges that he could no longer recall the names and the
“persons/parties”
to the Deed of Absolute Sale as they are not familiar to him and
“considering
that the document was notarized almost two (2) years ago.”
Concluding that the
complaint “fails to state a cause of action” against him, respondent
prays
for its dismissal.cralaw:red
After the parties submitted
their respective position papers, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, before which the present complaint
was filed, forwarded to this Court its Notice of Resolution[6]
stating that on March 22, 2003 the Board of Governors of the IBP
approved
and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner[7]
finding respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty
as notary public “by failing to establish the identity of the person
appearing
before him.”chanrobles virtual law library
In brushing aside respondent’s
claim that the person who appeared before him as the vendor Gonzales
misled
him into believing that he was Gonzales, the IBP took into account the
fact that respondent had previously notarized documents executed by
Gonzales
during his lifetime, a list of which documents was submitted by
complainant.[8]
This Court finds the
recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken.cralaw:red
By respondent’s own
admission, the parties to the Deed of Absolute Sale “had previous
records
of instruments and documents” which he had notarized. Given that,
respondent ought to have quite known the person of Gonzales. Yet,
he readily notarized the document, certainly in the absence of Gonzales
who had by then already dead.chanrobles virtual law library
As priorly reflected
above, respondent, in a stroke of contradiction, claimed that “the
person
of the VENDOR may have not been disclosed to [him]
and
instead confused [him] with another person.” Such proffered
excuse
betrays respondent’s callous disregard for his responsibilities as a
notary
public and as a lawyer. In this connection, it is never
trite
to repeatedly remind notaries public of the importance attached to the
act of notarization.cralaw:red
For notarization is
not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, it is invested with
substantive
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
may
act as notaries public
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 this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence a notary
public
should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same
are
the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him
to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. (Italics
and
underscoring in the original.)[9]
Having, by his act,
undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and
breached
Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which mandates that:
CANON 1 – A
LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES,chanrobles virtual law library
more particularly Rule
1.01 thereof which enjoins a lawyer not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct, respondent must indeed be faulted.
WHEREFORE, the notarial
commission, if still extant, of respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores is,
for
violation of the Notarial Law and the Code
of Professional Responsibility, REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years.cralaw:red
Respondent is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law also for a period of two (2) years, 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
have taken effect.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban, Chairman,
and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 1-5.
[2]
Id. at 10-11.
[3]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 12-13.
[5]
Id. at 21-25.
[6]
Id. at 75.
[7]
Id. at 76-79.
[8]
Id. at 45-48.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Fulgencio v. Martin, 403 SCRA 216, 220-221 (2003). | 
