Republic
of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
REUBEN
M.
PROTACIO,
Complainant,
Adm.
Case
No. 5764
January 13, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
ROBERTO M.
MENDOZA,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.:
This is a complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza for his alleged failure
to require the parties to a document which he notarized to appear
personally
before him.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Reuben
M. Protacio alleged that, as president of Jumping Jap Trading Company,
Inc. (JJTC, Inc.), he filed in the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila
on March 7, 2001 a complaint for estafa through falsification of public
documents against the spouses Nobuyasu and Carmencita Nemoto and the
Metropolitan
Land Corporation. He claimed that respondent Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza,
who served as counsel for the spouses Nemoto in that case, had
presented
in the investigation a resolution of the JJTC, Inc., dated March 30,
1998,
which purported to have been signed by him (the complainant), as
president/director
of JJTC, Inc., and Nobuyasu Nemoto, as director thereof. The resolution
had been notarized by respondent. It reads:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESOLVED AS IT IS
HEREBY
RESOLVED THAT Jumping Jap Corporation/Jumping Jap Company transfers,
conveys
and assigns unto Carmencita I. Fradejas, all of the said corporation’s
rights and interests over a parcel of land with a residential house
erected
thereon, located at #167 (#112) Pili Drive Ayala Alabang Village,
Muntinlupa
City covered by TCT No. 205572 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Makati
registered in the name of Metropolitan Land Corporation with an area of
618 sq. m.
RESOLVED FINALLY that
Reuben Protacio, President of Jumping Jap Trading Corp./Jumping Jap
Company
whose specimen signature appears hereinbelow be authorized and
empowered
for and in behalf of said corporation to execute the Deed of Assignment
transferring, conveying and assigning all of the rights and interests
of
said corporation subject of the Deed of Conditional Sale dated 1
December
1997, in favor of Carmencita I. Fradejas.
APPROVED, Manila, 30
March 1998.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant claimed
that he did not sign the board resolution nor did he attend a board
meeting
of the corporation on the date stated therein (March 30, 1998), and
therefore
the signature purporting to be his was a forgery. He alleged that the
Notarial
Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had in fact certified
that
it did not have a copy of the board resolution in question because
respondent
had not submitted his notarial report for March 1998. Furthermore,
according
to complainant, the records of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation
(BID) showed that Nobuyasu Nemoto was out of the country on March 30,
1998,
having left the Philippines on March 26, 1998 and having returned only
on March 31, 1998. Hence, complainant claimed, it was impossible for
Nobuyasu
Nemoto to have attended the supposed board meeting on March 30, 1998
and
to have signed the resolution on the same date. Complainant charged
that
respondent knowingly and maliciously notarized the said board
resolution
without the presence of the party allegedly executing it.cralaw:red
In addition, another
document entitled Deed of Assignment, dated April 2, 1998, appeared to
have also been notarized by respondent, purporting to have been signed
by complainant as one of the parties therein. The Deed of Assignment
reads:
Know All
Men
By These Presents:
This Deed of
Assignment
made and entered into on this 2nd day of April 1998 at Manila by and
between:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jumping Jap
Trading
Corporation/Jumping Jap Company, a corporation existing under and by
virtue
of Philippine law, with business address at No. 310 Galeria de
Magallanes
Condominium, Magallanes Village, Makati City, here represented by its
President,
Reuben Protacio, hereinafter referred to as ASSIGNOR;
- and -
Carmencita I.
Fradejas,
Filipino, of legal age, single and with residence at #167 (#112) Pili
Drive,
Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, hereinafter referred to as the
ASSIGNEE.
WITNESSETH That
The parties have
agreed
as follows:
The ASSIGNOR for
value
received, hereby transfers, conveys, and assigns unto the ASSIGNEE, her
heirs, and successors-in-interest, all of the former’s rights and
interests
over a parcel of land with a residential house erected thereon, located
at #167 (#112) Pili Drive, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City,
covered
by TCT No. 205572 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati registered
in the name of Metropolitan Land Corporation, with an area of 618 sq.m.
and subject of the Deed of Conditional Sale dated 1 December 1997.
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the parties have hereunto affixed their signatures on this 2nd day of
April,
1998, in Manila.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant denied that
he had signed this deed of assignment. He pointed out that the Notarial
Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had certified that there
was no such document on file in that office as respondent had not
submitted
a notarial report for April 1998.[3]
Complainant alleged
that respondent should not have notarized any document without first
requiring
the presence of the parties to attest to him that it had been duly
executed,
made voluntarily and with the knowledge of the parties involved. He
asked
that respondent be held accountable, and respondent be disbarred from
the
practice of law.[4]
In his answer,[5]
respondent insisted that on March 30, 1998, the JJTC, Inc. had adopted
a board resolution authorizing the transfer of its rights over some
property
in favor of one Carmencita Fradejas, who subsequently married Nobuyasu
Nemoto. He insisted that the resolution, dated March 30, 1998, had been
signed by complainant and Nobuyasu Nemoto and later notarized by him
(respondent).
Respondent said that the document was dated March 30, 1998 because it
was
prepared on that date, but it was actually signed by the parties
therein
only on March 31, 1998, upon the arrival of Nobuyasu Nemoto from Japan.
It was alleged that, through inadvertence, respondent failed to change
the date. Respondent maintained that the signature appearing on the
board
resolution was that of complainant, who participated in the board
meeting.
He explained that he failed to submit his notarial report for 1998
because
it was lost when he transferred his residence from Sta. Cruz, Manila to
Makati City.cralaw:red
With regard to the Deed
of Assignment, respondent claimed that it was executed by complainant
in
the presence of respondent and other witnesses. As proof of the
authenticity
of complainant’s signature in the Deed of Assignment, he furnished a
letter
addressed to the Metropolitan Land Corp., dated April 20, 1998,
allegedly
prepared by complainant, in which he (complainant) appeared to be
confirming
a request he had previously made for the substitution of the JJTC, Inc.
by Carmencita I. Fradejas as vendee in the Deed of Conditional Sale,
pursuant
to the Deed of Assignment dated 30 March 1998. The letter reads:
20 April
1998
METROPOLITAN LAND
CORP.
Penthouse JMT Corp.
Cond.
ADB Ave., Ortigas
Center
Pasig City,
Philippines
Attention: JOSE
MA.
V. LAMUG
Managing Directorchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dear Mr. Lamug:
This will
formalize
my request for the change of the name of the Vendee in the Deed of
Conditional
Sale between Metropolitan Land Corporation and Jumping Jap Trading
Corp/Jumping
Jap Company dated 1 December 1997 from Jumping Jap Trading Corp/Jumping
Jap Company to Carmencita I. Fradejas, pursuant to the Deed of
Assignment
dated 30 March 1998, executed by said corporation in favor of the
latter.
Enclosed are copies [of] said Deed of Assignment and Board Resolution
authorizing
such Deed of Assignment, for your ready reference.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With the aforesaid
Deed
of Assignment, Jumping Jap Trading Corp/Jumping Jap Company, through
the
undersigned, hereby releases Metropolitan Land Corporation from any and
all present and future claims arising from the execution of the
above-mentioned
Conditional Deed of Sale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Very truly yours,
(signed)
REUBEN PROTACIO
President[6]
Respondent stated he
was
ready to submit the original of the Board Resolution and Deed of
Assignment
to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for analysis and
comparison
of the signatures therein with complainant’s signature in his
Complaint-Affidavit
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila to prove the
authenticity
of complainant’s signatures in the questioned documents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his report, dated
November 27, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent to have been negligent in the
performance of his duties and obligations as a notary public and
recommended
the revocation of his notarial commission for a period of two years.[7]
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner, with the modification that
respondent’s
commission as notary public be suspended and that he be disqualified
from
appointment as notary public for two years.cralaw:red
The findings of the
IBP are supported by the evidence in the record.cralaw:red
Act No. 2103[8]
provides:
Section 1. (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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is necessary that
a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person
before
the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the
document.[9]
The importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid. The
acknowledgment
of a document is not an empty meaningless act. By it a private document
is converted into a public document, making it admissible in court
without
further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, it behooves every
notary
public to see to it that this requirement is observed and that
formalities
for the acknowledgment of documents are complied with.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, Nobuyasu
Nemoto, who was allegedly a signatory to a resolution of a corporation,
allegedly notarized by respondent, could not have signed the document
on
March 30, 1998, the date indicated therein, since he was not then in
the
Philippines. Respondent’s explanation that Nemoto actually signed the
document
on March 31, 1998, after arriving from Japan, cannot be accepted.
Documents
must speak the truth if their integrity is to be preserved. That is
what
a notary public vouches for when he states in the jurat that the
parties
have appeared before him at the time and in the place he (the notary
public)
states and that the document is then a free act and deed. It is for
this
reason that public documents are given full faith and credit, at least
as to their due execution.cralaw:red
Even more serious than
the failure of respondent to indicate the true date of the resolution
is
his failure to file a copy of the document with the Regional Trial
Court
of Manila as required by law. Chapter 11 of Act No. 2657
(Administrative
Code), as amended, provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 245. Notarial register.
Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial
register,
wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he
shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to
any
person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor.cralaw:red
Such register shall
be kept in books to be furnished by the Attorney-General to any notary
public upon request and upon payment of the actual cost thereof, but
officers
exercising the functions of notaries public ex officio shall be
supplied
with the register at Government expense. The register shall be duly
paged,
and on the first page, the Attorney-General shall certify the number of
pages of which the book consists.cralaw:red
Sec. 246. Matters to
be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such
register,
in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn
to,
or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to or
acknowledging
the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of
the
execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees
collected
by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when
the
instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part
of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief
description
of the substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a consecutive
number,
beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give
to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the
instrument
the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No
blank
line shall be left between entries.cralaw:red
A certified copy of
each month’s entries as described in this section and a certified copy
of any instrument acknowledged before them shall within the first ten
days
of the month next following be forwarded by the notaries public to the
clerk of the Court of First Instance of the province and shall be filed
under the responsibility of such officer: Provided, That if there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to
this effect in lieu of the certified copies herein
required.
(Emphasis supplied)
Respondent’s failure
to comply with the duty to file a copy of the resolution with the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila and to send to it the entries in his notarial
register
constitutes a sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, we think that
the suspension of respondent for one year as a notary public would be
more
appropriate considering that there is no competent proof that
complainant’s
signature in the documents notarized by respondent was forged. What was
clearly established in this case was respondent’s failure to submit a
copy
of the Board Resolution and the Deed of Assignment notarized to the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila. In Douglas v. Lopez, Jr.,[12]
the Court suspended the respondent therein from his commission as
notary
public for one year, for notarizing the verification of a motion to
dismiss
when three of the affiants thereof did not appear before him and for
notarizing
the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories. In another
case, Coronado v. Felongco,[13]
the Court, in suspending the respondent for two months as a notary
public
considered the fact that it was his first offense and that he expressed
remorse for his negligence in notarizing a document, not knowing that
one
of the affiants thereof has died a few days before the date of
notarization
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza is SUSPENDED from
his
commission as a notary public for a period of one (1) year with WARNING
that a repetition of the same negligent act charged in this complaint
will
be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Id., pp. 9-10.
[3]
Id., pp. 1-2.
[4]
Id., p. 2.
[5]
Id., pp. 15-22.
[6]
Id., p. 49.
[7]
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, p. 6.
[8]
"An Act Providing for the Acknowledgment and Authentication of
Instruments
and Documents Within the Philippine Islands," enacted on January 26,
1912.
[9]
Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. v. Pilla, 350 SCRA 138 (2001); Villarin v.
Sabate,
Jr., 325 SCRA 123 (2000); Flores v. Chua, 306 SCRA 465 (1999).
[10]
See Coronado v. Felongco, 344 SCRA 565 (2000); Nunga v. Viray, 306 SCRA
487 (1999); Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 (1997); Dinoy v. Rosal, 235
SCRA 419 (1994).
[11]
Section 249, Chapter 11 of Act No. 2657 (Administrative Code), as
amended,
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec.
249. Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions
of
duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the
proper
judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his
commission:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a)
The failure of the notary to keep a notarial register.
(b)
The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial
register touching his notarial acts in the matter required by law.
(c)
The failure of the notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper
clerk of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month
next following.
(d)
The failure of the notary to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration
of his commission, as required by law.
(e)
The failure of the notary to forward his notarial register, when
filled,
to the proper clerk of court.
(f)
The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates.
(g)
The failure of a notary to make report, within a reasonable time, to
the
proper judge of first instance concerning the performance of his
duties,
as may be required by such judge.
(h)
Any other dereliction or act which shall appear to the judge to
constitute
good cause for removal.
[12]
325 SCRA 123 (2000).
[13]
344 SCRA 565 (2000). |