SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10592. April 3, 2019.](Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782)
NAPOLEON R. AGATON, complainant, vs.ATTY. LUCAS V. SUGUI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10592 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782) — Napoleon R. Agaton versus Atty. Lucas V. Sugui
Before the Court is an administrative case that arose from a complaint 1 for disbarment filed by herein complainant Napoleon R. Agaton (Agaton) against respondent Atty. Lucas V. Sugui (Atty. Sugui) for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules) amounting to Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer. 2
The facts show that sometime in August 2011, Atty. Sugui, a commissioned notary public, notarized an Affidavit dated August 19, 2011 of a certain Luz Rollon (Subject Affidavit). 3 However, Agaton claims that Luz Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui to swear to the Subject Affidavit, which is shown by the fact that above the name Luz Rollon was written "by: A.S. Rollon." 4 Moreover, it appears that a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) was presented to Atty. Sugui and that the details of the same were not indicated in the Subject Affidavit. 5 Agaton further claims that Luz Rollon was out of the country from February 2011 to December 2011 — evidenced by a Certification 6 dated December 8, 2012 issued by the Bureau of Immigration — making it impossible for her to have personally appeared before Atty. Sugui on August 2011. 7
Pursuant to the Court's Resolution 8 dated December 10, 2014, Atty. Sugui filed his Comment 9 dated March 18, 2015. For his defense, Atty. Sugui claimed to have been burdened by numerous documents for signature at the time he personally notarized the Subject Affidavit. 10 Likewise, he failed to notice the word "by" next to the signature of the person appearing before him, who in turn presented an "identification card" as proof of identity. 11 Finally, Atty. Sugui posits that he acted in good faith and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions had not been overturned by the evidence of Agaton. 12
In a Resolution 13 dated August 12, 2015, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
A mandatory conference was held on July 22, 2016 and was terminated on the same day. 14 Only Atty. Sugui submitted a Memorandum. 15
IBP Report and Recommendation
On February 28, 2017, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, through its Investigating Commissioner, issued a Report and Recommendation 16 (Report) of even date finding Atty. Sugui liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules:
Although the acts committed by the respondent is (sic) indeed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, such acts by themselves do not constitute gross misconduct.
xxx xxx xxx
As discussed above, Atty. Sugui failed to faithfully discharge his duties as a notary public and is RECOMMENDED to be meted out the penalty of REVOCATION OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION, IF SUBSISTING, DISQUALIFICATION FROM REAPPOINTMENT AS NOTARY PUBLIC FOR TWO (2) YEARS, AND SUSPENSION FOR SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED. 17
In the Report, the Investigating Commissioner rejected Atty. Sugui's claim of good faith as the same could not excuse him from violating the 2004 Notarial Rules, i.e., notarization despite the lack of personal appearance by the affiant. 18 Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Sugui no longer enjoyed the presumption of regularity as the Subject Affidavit was, in the first place, improperly notarized. 19
Acting on the Report, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXIII-2017-018, 20 adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification imposing instead the following penalty a) Immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission if still subsisting, and b) Disqualification from being re-appointed as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years with a Warning that repetition of a similar act or violation shall be dealt with more severely. 21 (Emphasis in the original; italic omitted)
Issue
Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
The Court's Ruling
After an evaluation of the records of the case and the submissions of the parties below, the Court affirms the IBP's recommendation.
To evade liability, Atty. Sugui argued in the main that he was burdened by numerous documents awaiting his signature and that there were a number of persons waiting in line to have their documents notarized. 22 Atty. Sugui further argued that he was, at the most, guilty of carelessness when he failed to ascertain the identity of the person signing the Subject Affidavit. This is unacceptable.
Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules clearly provides:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Here, it was determined by the IBP that the Subject Affidavit was indeed notarized by Atty. Sugui without the personal appearance of the supposed affiant, Luz Rollon. This fact was not denied by Atty. Sugui: 23
It is clear as day that the person who signed the affidavits in question was not the affiant herself, but a certain A.S. Rollon. The phrase "by" at the left portion of the affiant's signature, should have raised a red flag and alerted the respondent. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and jurisprudence pertaining to such rules, are clear in holding that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization.
In fact, in the case of Fabay v. Resuena, the respondent Atty. Resuena notarized a Special Power of Attorney wherein the signatures of the principals were signed as "BY: REMEDIOS PEREZ." The court reiterated in the said case the established rule that 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 truths of what are stated therein." The court actually disbarred the respondent in the same case, considering the attendant circumstance.
Aside from this implied admission by the respondent, the complainant presented other evidence to bolster his claim that Luz Rollon did not appear personally before the respondent. The certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration clearly shows that the Luz Rollon, the affiant of the subject documents, was abroad during the time Atty. Sugui notarized the said subject documents, and hence it was physically impossible for Luz Rollon to appear before Atty. Sugui at the time of notarization. This certification, which shows the travel records, being an official document from the government, enjoys the presumption of regularity, and hence the respondent should be deemed to have admitted x x x the genuineness and authenticity of such, when he failed to present controverting evidence or at least deny the genuineness and authenticity of the said certification. 24
Moreover, the jurat of the Subject Affidavit was based on a mere CTC, which is not among those considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules. 25 In the recent case of Heir of HerminigildoA. Unite v. Guzman, 26 the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for his act of notarizing a document using only a CTC as evidence of identity:
In this case, respondent, as duly found by the IBP-IC, clearly failed to faithfully observe his duties as a notary public when he failed to confirm the identity of Torrices through the competent evidence of identity required by the Notarial Rules. This fact is clear from the Deed itself which shows that Torrices presented only his CTC when he appeared before respondent. Jurisprudence provides that a community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list of competent evidence of identity under the Rules; more importantly, it does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before notaries public which the Rules deem as the more appropriate and competent means by which they can ascertain the person's identity.
xxx xxx xxx
As herein discussed, respondent's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. He should thus be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. Consistent with jurisprudence, he should bemeted out with the modified penaltyof immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if any, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years, and suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court hereby: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 27 (Additional emphasis supplied)
Hence, following the above ruling, the Court reinstates the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. Time and again, the Court has held that notarization is not a purposeless ministerial act; by converting an otherwise private instrument into a public one, notarization is imbued with public interest and therefore authorized officers are bound to observe utmost diligence in the performance of their duties as such. 28 Based on the established facts, it is therefore clear that Atty. Sugui is liable for violating the mandatory provisions of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lucas V. Sugui GUILTY of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. Accordingly, the Court hereby: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately upon receipt of this Resolution; REVOKES his incumbent commission as notary public, if any; and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation on the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 90-91.
3.Id. at 5-6.
4.Id. at 1, 6.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 2.
8.Id. at 10.
9.Id. at 21-27. Denominated as "Answer."
10.Id. at 22.
11.Id. at 23.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 38.
14.Id. at 65.
15.Id. at 81-84.
16.Id. at 90-99. Penned by Investigating Commissioner Dominica L. Dumangeng-Rosario.
17.Id. at 99.
18.Id. at 94.
19.Id. at 98.
20.Id. at 88-89.
21.Id. at 88.
22.Id. at 22.
23.Id. at 94.
24.Id. at 96-97.
25. See Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite v. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062, July 2, 2018, p. 5.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 4-6.
28.Sappayani v. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8 (2015).