SECOND DIVISION
VICENTE
FOLLOSCOAND
HERMILINA
FOLLOSCO,
Complainants,
A.C.
No.
6186
February 3, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
RAFAEL MATEO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
The present administrative
complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo was originally filed by the
Spouses
Vicente and Hermilina Follosco with the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR)
some time in 1994. In August of the same year, the CHR referred
the
complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
appropriate
action. A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Administrative
Case
No. 4375, was also filed by the Spouses Follosco against herein
respondent,
based on the same acts complained of in the present complaint.cralaw:red
The complaint was then
raffled to Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, JrAfter the parties
submitted
their respective position papers and other pertinent pleadings,
Commissioner
Magpayo, Jr., rendered his Report and Recommendation dated July 24,
2003.chanrobles virtual law library
Based on the following
findings of facts, to wit:chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent was a notary
public during all the time (1992 and 1993) material to the complaint.cralaw:red
Complainants are the
owners of a certain property (house and lot) located in Tanay, Rizal
which
was mortgaged to Dr. Epitacio R. Tongohan for a loan of P50,000.00.cralaw:red
Pursuant to this transaction,
several related documents were caused to be executed namely: (1)
Sinumpaang
Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (2) Dagdag na Paglilinaw
Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang
Pangako
Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5) Promissory Note (Sinumpaang
Pangako)
which were all notarized by herein respondent in his official capacity
as notary public for the Province of Rizal.cralaw:red
Claiming that the signatures
appearing on the documents to be forged, complainants filed criminal
complaints
for falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, respondent
Mateo and the instrumental witnesses which complaints were docketed as
I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of
Rizal.cralaw:red
I.S. No. 94-269 which
involves the document entitled Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang
Sanglaan”
was dismissed by Pros. Marianito Santos while I.S. No. 94-2064 which
was
filed at a later time was dismissed as against respondent, but four (4)
counts of falsification of public documents were filed in court against
Tongohan and Trinidad Iposadas and one (1) count of falsification
against
Veronica Regondola. The latter two were the witnesses to the
documents.cralaw:red
Herein complainants
not entirely satisfied with the resolution of investigating prosecutor
Jison D. Julian elevated I.S. No. 94-2064 to the Department of Justice
on a petition for review.chanrobles virtual law library
The Department of Justice,
speaking thru Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño, reversed
the
resolution in I.S. No. 94-2064 and directed that the questioned
documents
be referred to the NBI or PNP Crime Laboratory for appropriate
examination
and thereafter to conduct a re-investigation of the case and resolve
the
case anew based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
After due examination
of the questioned document (Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang
Sanglaan),
the NBI issued “Questioned Documents Report No. 661-900 containing the
conclusion: “The questioned signatures on one hand and the standard
sample
signatures on the other hand were not written by one and the same
person.”
By the use of this forged
documents, new tax declarations bearing Nos. 00-TN-001-3661 and
00-TN-001-3147
were issued in the name of Dr. Epitacio Tongohan effectively canceling
Tax Declaration Nos. 00-001-1158 and 001-3217 in the name of
complainant
Vicente Follosco.[1]chanrobles virtual law library
Commissioner Magpayo,
Jr. found respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his
duty
as a notary public and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for a period of three months with warning that repetition of the
same
or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.[2]
In its Resolution dated
August 30, 2003, The IBP Board of Governors approved the report and
recommendation
of Commissioner Magpayo, Jr., with the modification that instead,
respondent’s
notarial commission be suspended for one year and that respondent be
reprimanded
with warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the
future
will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
The Court agrees with
the finding of the IBP that respondent failed to exercise utmost
diligence
in the performance of his duties as notary public.cralaw:red
Section 1 of Public
Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, explicitly provides:
Sec. 1.
(a)
The acknowledgment shall be 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, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.
The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is by law
required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
From the foregoing, it
is clear that the party acknowledging must appear before the notary
public
or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments
or
documents.[3]chanrobles virtual law library
In this case, respondent
does not deny notarizing the questioned documents. According to
him,
these documents were already prepared and executed at the time it was
submitted
to him for notarization; and because he was familiar with the
complainants,
he “unsuspectingly” affixed his signatures thereon. Respondent
also
stated that he does not have the slightest intention of causing damage
to complainants.[4]
It cannot be said that
respondent acted in good faith in notarizing the questioned documents
without
requiring the affiants to personally appear before him and ensuring
that
the signatures were indeed theirs. Respondent’s claim of good
faith
cannot relieve him from the consequences of his reckless failure to
comply
with the dictates of the law.cralaw:red
Acknowledgment of a
document is not an empty act or routine.[5]
Thus, in Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos,[6]
the Court emphasized the significance of the act of notarization, to
wit:
The importance attached
to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. 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. Notarization converts a private
document into a public document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. 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 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. 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.cralaw:red
A notary public’s function
should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers
and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity.[7]
The Court is not unaware
of the careless practice of some lawyers who notarize documents without
requiring the physical presence of the affiants. For one reason
or
another, they forego this essential requirement without taking into
account
the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants
may not be who they purport to be. The Court had resolved
numerous
cases involving unauthentic notarized deeds and documents. Sadly,
public
faith in the integrity of public documents is continually eroding, and
the Court must, once more, exhort notaries public to be more
circumspect
in the discharge of their functions.chanrobles virtual law library
It devolves upon herein
respondent to act with due care and diligence in stamping fiat on the
questioned
documents. A notary public should not notarize a document unless
the persons who signed the same are the very persons who executed and
personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated
therein.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
As borne by the records,
respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted
not
only in damaging complainants’ rights over the property subject of the
documents but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and
in degrading the function of notarization. Hence, he should be
liable
for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.cralaw:red
As a lawyer commissioned
as notary public, respondent 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 respondent and
failing
therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
professional
indiscretion.[9]
As the Court has held
in Flores vs. Chua:
Where the
notary
public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder
by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any. The Code
of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in
unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. In Maligsa v.
Cabanting,
we emphatically pronounced:
As a lawyer
commissioned
as notary public, respondent 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.
By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he
has
made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.[10]
(Emphasis supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
Under the facts and
circumstances
of the case, respondent’s notarial commission should not only be
suspended
as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors but respondent must also
be
suspended from the practice of law as recommended by the investigating
commissioner.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, ATTY. RAFAEL
MATEO is SUSPENDED from practice of law for three (3) months; his
incumbent
notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED; and he is prohibited from
being
commissioned as notary public, for one year, effective immediately,
with
a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the
future
will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be attached to the
personal
record of respondent; the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Court for
dissemination to all lower courts; and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,
for proper guidance and information.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 5-7.
[2]
Id., p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Coronado vs. Felongco, A.C. No. 2611, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 565,
568.
[4]
Respondent’s Position Paper, p. 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Gerona vs. Datingaling, A.C. No. 4801, February 27, 2003; Coronado
case,
supra., note 3.
[6]
A.C. No. 5645. July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498, 504-505.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Vda. de Bernardo vs. Restauro, A.C. No. 3849, June 25, 2003.
[8]
Villarin vs. Sabate, Jr., 325 SCRA 123, 128 (2000).
[9]
Ibidchanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Flores vs. Chua, 306 SCRA 465, 484-485 (1999). |