PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (Cases on Violations of Notarial Law) January 29, 2018
Case Title
Page
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] February 8, 2017
JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complaint, vs. ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent A.C. No. 10562 August 1, 2017
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent. A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974] January 26, 2016
1
2
3
4
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] February 8, 2017 FACTS: Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan from November 2004 until January 2011 before he was transferred to the Department of Justice. Coquia here alleged that sometime on 2009, Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente and Coquia, and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by the latter, and subsequently notarized the said documents. Coquia further claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that on the said date, she subscribed and sworn to the said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date and time, she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University in Manila as evidenced by the certified true copy of the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record. Consequently, Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court. Hence, this instant complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law. HELD: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public Rule II, Section 1. The Supreme Court held that notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally. Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. He admitted that he notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents Such failure to verify the identities of the parties was further shown by the fact that the pertinent identification details of the parties to the subject documents, as proof of their identity, were lacking in the subject documents' acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. From the foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that there was a failure on the part of Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence required of him as a notary public ex-officio. Therefore, the SC ruled that Atty. Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one year. 2
JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complaint, vs. ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent A.C. No. 10562 August 1, 2017 FACTS: Boers and her siblings are co-owners of parcels of land. Sometime in October 2008, Boers learned that a certain Isaac Gavino (Gavino) annotated an adverse claim on their land based on a Deed of Sale dated October 16, 1991. Boers' signature appears on the said document as one of the sellers, which was notarized by Atty. Calubaquib on that same date. Boers claims that she could not have signed the Deed of Sale and appeared before Calubaquib for the notarization because she was in Canada at that time evidenced by her passport which shows that she left the Philippines to return to Canada on December 20, 1990. Further, she also presented her Philippine visa which was valid only until February 7, 1991. Boers also points to the absence of any residence certificate number under her name and signature in the notarization of the Deed of Sale. Neither was there any other competent form of identification stated in it. Boers inquired with the National Archives of the Philippines where she learned that the Deed of Sale does not appear in Calubaquib's notarial file. Though it appears that the Deed of Sale was acknowledged, upon verification with the National Archives, the document that corresponds to it is not the Deed of Sale but an Affidavit. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Calubaquib violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. HELD: The SC here held that the Rules on Notarial Practice governs the various notarial acts that a duly commissioned notary public is authorized to perform. These include acknowledgment, affirmation and oath, and jurat. In the case of the Deed of Sale, Calubaquib performed the notarial act identified under the Rules as acknowledgment. Here, Calubaquib clearly violated the rule. Boer satisfactorily proved that she could not have personally appeared before Calubaquib. The latter also violated the mandatory recording requirements under the Rules. Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules requires a notary public to keep a notarial register. Section 2 mandates that a notary public must record in the notarial register every notarial act at the time of notarization. The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public document. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. In this case, however, the SC noted that this is not the first time that it sanctioned Calubaquib for his violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice. This serves as an aggravating circumstance that merits a harsher penalty. Therefore, SC imposed on Calubaquib the penalty of SUSPENSION for TWO YEARS from the practice of law effective upon finality of the Decision. Further, Calubaquib's notarial commission is REVOKED and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
3
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent. A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974] January 26, 2016 FACTS: On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory Fabay before the MTC with respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel. On the same date, Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as grantors, in favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared that it was only Remedios Perez who actually signed the SPA in behalf of Amador, Valentino, Gloria and Gracia. Said SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book. Later, the ejectment case was decided in favor of the client of Atty. Resuena, however, on appeal, the RTC ordered the case to be remanded to the court a quo to try the case on the merits wherein it noted that both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez have already died. Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals therein, Amador and Valentino were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo was made to appear as attomey-in-fact of Amador and Valentino when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law. Hence, this instant complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and for Atty. Resuena's misconduct as a lawyer. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation on notarial law committed by Atty. Resuena. HELD: Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public. The Supreme Court held that 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. Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. There is no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial law, he also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
4
