The Supreme Court has exhorted lawyers who have been commissioned as notaries public to faithfully exercise their duties, particularly in ascertaining the identities of persons availing their services.
In a nine-page en banc decision, the SC through Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao ordered the suspension of two lawyers identified as Miguel Padernal and Delfin Agcaoili Jr. from the practice of law due to their gross negligence in fulfilling their duty to identify the signatories to a document before performing a notarial act.
The SC emphasized that notarization is not merely “a mechanical act” since it would have an effect on the public’s daily transactions.
“Prefatorily, it is a time-honored principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. It is one heavily impressed with public interest, for notarization converts a private document to a public one, making it admissible without further proof of its authenticity,” the 15-member bench ruled.
“Plain as a pikestaff, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in performing his or her duties in order to preserve the public’s confidence in the integrity of the notarial system,” it said.
The SC found both Padernal and Agcaoili guilty of violating the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Padernal was suspended from the practice of law for one year and barred from being commissioned as notary public for two years.
But the tribunal imposed a much stiffer penalty against Agcaoili considering his failure to participate in the investigation conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) despite summons and for his previous administrative liability for notarizing a document without the presence of the parties.
Agcaoili was suspended from the practice of law for five years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public.
The SC also revoked incumbent commissions as notaries public of Padernal and Agcaoili, if any, and were warned that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.
The suspension of the two lawyers stemmed from the complaint lodged before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP filed by Fortunato Dionisio Jr., and Franklin Dionisio.
The complainants claimed that they founded a partnership named FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company together with their sister Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon and their departed mother.
A parcel of land was then registered under the name of the partnership.
Upon expiry of its term, complainants entrusted the liquidation and winding of the partnership affairs to Franklin’s daughter-in-law, lawyer Rowena Dionisio.
At the interstice, Padernal notarized on February 12, 2010 a Real Estate Mortgage on February12, 2010 executed by FCD and Union Bank of the Philippines wherein the said realty was proffered as security for a loan taken out by Sunyang Mining Corporation in the amount of P20 million.
At the same time, Agcaoili notarized a partner’s certificate on the same date, authorizing the said mortgage.
However, the complainants were shocked when they later discovered that the subject lot was foreclosed and sold at public auction with Union Bank emerging as the winning bidder.
Contrary to what appeared in both the Real Estate Mortgage and the Partner’s Certificate, complainants maintained that they, together with Felicitas, did not personally appear on February 12, 2010 before the respondents.
Felicitas said she was out of the country based on her travel records.
Complainants also said that the presentation of community tax certificates, as indicated in the subject documents, should not have been relied upon in determining whether they had indeed personally appeared before the respondents together with their sister.
For his part, Padernal admitted having notarized the subject documents and asserted that he was introduced to complainants and their sister by officers of Union Bank’s Business Line Department.
He insisted that the complainants showed their respective identification cards before signing the Real Estate Mortgage in his presence.
Agcaoili, on the other hand, neither filed his verified answer and position paper nor attended the mandatory conference on the matter scheduled by the IBP.
After scrutiny of the parties’ submissions, the IBP found Padernal and Agcaoilio to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when they notarized the documents in question without properly establishing the identity of the complainants.