THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12823. October 7, 2020.]
ANDRES P. ALUMNO AND JUSIE1ATOLBA ALUMNO, complainants,vs. ATTY. AURELIO A. GALACGAC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 7, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12823 (Andres P. Alumno and JusieAtolba Alumno, Complainants, v. Atty. Aurelio A. Galacgac, Respondent). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated February 17, 2020 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) transmitting the documents pertaining to this case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution dated July 12, 2018 of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the investigating commissioner with modification, and imposing upon respondent the penalties of (a) immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting, (b) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years, and (c) suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Before the Court is a complaint 2 for disbarment filed by Andres P. Alumno (Andres) and Jusie Atolba Alumno (Jusie) (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Aurelio A. Galacgac (respondent), charging the latter with violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).
Antecedents
As alleged in the complaint, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), executed in favor of a certain James Advincula (Advincula), which was fraught with several irregularities, to wit: 1) the signature on top of the name of Andres was a forgery; 2) relevant information on the identity of Andres was lacking; 3) the place where the parties supposedly signed the instrument was in La Trinidad, Benguet yet the Acknowledgment indicated City of Baguio; 4) although the instrument was an SPA, what was acknowledged and notarized by the respondent was a document of "Sale"; and 5) Jusie did not personally appear before respondent. 3
For his part, respondent denied the allegations against him. He averred that on 21 July 2016, complainants and Advincula went to his office, armed with an SPA without any Acknowledgment page. The SPA was dated 29 April 2016 and executed in La Trinidad, Benguet. He contended that all the parties to the SPA, including the witnesses, personally appeared before him and signed the questioned instrument. At the time, only Jusie and Advincula presented valid identification cards, while Andres only had an expired identification card. Thus, Advincula accompanied Andres at the Baguio City Hall to secure a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). However, respondent was not given photocopies of the parties' CTC and the identification cards. 4
Ruling of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
In her 25 April 2018 Report and Recommendation, 5 the Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for violation of the Notarial Rules, and recommended the penalty of one (1) year suspension as notary public. 6 In its 14 June 2019 Extended Resolution, 7 the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted the Investigating Commissioner's findings of facts with modifications. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the following: 1) the immediate revocation of respondent's notarial commission, if subsisting; 2) his suspension as a commissioned notary public for a period of two (2) years; and 3) his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. 8
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds it fitting to sustain the IBP's findings and recommendation since substantial evidence supports the conclusion that respondent violated the Notarial Rules.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. 9
Respondent was grossly negligent in notarizing the questioned document, having failed to require from the parties their respective proofs of identity. His negligence was likewise apparent when he haphazardly notarized a document of Sale without verifying that the same was actually an SPA. Finally, respondent did not deny that the first page of the SPA was signed in La Trinidad, Benguet on 29 April 2016 while the Acknowledgement portion which he prepared and notarized was executed in Baguio City on 21 July 2016. His failure to require the parties to affix their signatures on the Acknowledgment portion, which was executed at a different place and on a different date, raised doubts as to whether complainants were actually present at the time he notarized the document.
It has been held that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law — the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case. 10 Considering that respondent was not only remiss in his duties as a notary public but had also breached Canon 1 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent must suffer the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting, and his disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years.
WHEREFORE, the 14 June 2019 Extended Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby NOTED. The Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in its 14 June 2019 Extended Resolution, which adopted with modification the 25 April 2018 Report and Recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner.
Accordingly, respondent Atty. Aurelio A. Galacgac is found GUILTY of violation of Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. Atty. Aurelio A. Galacgac's current notarial commission, if any, is IMMEDIATELY REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. Further, Atty. Aurelio A. Galacgac is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Josle, in some parts of the record.
2.Rollo, pp. 02-05.
3.Id. at 03-04.
4.Id. at 137-140.
5.Id. at 281-285; signed by Commissioner Gina H. Mirano-Jesena.
6.Id. at 284-285.
7.Id. at 286-289.
8.Id. at 289.
9.Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr., A.C. No. 10540, 28 November 2019.
10.Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe v. Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, 20 March 2019.
11. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.