Caalim v. Dannug-Salucon

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12774. April 28, 2021.]

ARNOLD C. CAALIM AND ROMEO G. CORBITO, petitioners,vs. ATTY. MARIA CATHERINE L. DANNUG-SALUCON, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 28, 2021, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12774 (Arnold C. Caalim and Romeo G. Corbito v. Atty. Maria Catherine L. Dannug-Salucon). — The Court NOTES:

(1) the letter dated November 26, 2019 of Director Randall C. Tabayoyong of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), transmitting to this Court the documents pertaining to this case;

(2) the Notice of Resolution dated December 7, 2017 of the IBP Board of Governors (BOG), which resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit; and

(3) the Notice of Resolution dated May 28, 2019 of the IBP BOG, which resolved to deny complainants' motion for reconsideration there being no new reasons or arguments adduced to justify the reversal of the previous decision of the Board of Governors.

On June 1, 2015, complainants Arnold C. Caalim (Arnold) and Romeo G. Corbito (Romeo) filed a disbarment complaint and revocation of notarial commission 1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Attorney Maria Catherine L. Dannug-Salucon (Atty. Dannug-Salucon).

The complainants alleged that sometime in 2013, Arnold's mother, Estelita C. Caalim (Estelita), received an Order from the Claims and Conflict Division of Region 2, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with the attached Protest 2 allegedly executed by Estelita's siblings, Esmenia Corbito Mendoza (Esmenia) and Silvestre Corbito (Silvestre), before respondent Atty. Dannug-Salucon. When Estelita confronted her brother Silvestre about the protest document, the latter denied having signed and executed it.

On December 1, 2014, Estelita and Silvestre filed a Joint-Complaint Affidavit 3 with the Office of City Prosecutor of Ilagan City charging Esmenia and respondent Atty. Dannug-Salucon with the crime of falsification of public document defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Thereafter, Arnold and Romeo, sons of Estelita and Silvestre, respectively, filed the herein complaint 4 against Atty. Dannug-Salucon for her unlawful and unethical conduct in the performance of her duties as a notary public particularly by: (a) notarizing the Protest after allowing one of the protestants therein to sign on behalf of her co-protestant by writing ''By Esmenia Corbito" on top of SILVESTRE DC CORBITO without the consent and against the will of Silvestre; (b) making it appear that Silvestre participated in the said Protest when in truth he did not do so; and (c) making it appear in her notarial register that it was Estelita and not Esmenia who executed the Protest before her. 5

In her Answer, 6 Atty. Dannug-Salucon alleged that Esmenia; together with her nephews Edgar and Renato Corbito, went to her office in Ilagan City, Isabela on June 11, 2013 to have the subject Protest notarized. The subject Protest had two signatories namely, Esmenia and Silvestre. However, since Silvestre was not around, respondent requested Esmenia to return to her office in the afternoon together with the other signatory, Silvestre. 7

When Esmenia returned, she declared that Silvestre could not come and that she alone would sign the Protest without her brother, Silvestre. Hence, after having informed herself of the facts which she was to certify and ascertained the identity of affiant Esmenia, the truthfulness and voluntariness of her declarations, as well as the genuineness and due execution thereof, and after asking Esmenia to sign and indicate her competent evidence of identity, Atty. Dannug-Salucon notarized the subject Protest. 8

Moreover, respondent averred that Esmenia singularly signed the subject Protest and did not sign or write anything on top of SILVESTRE DC CORBITO. Esmenia's subsequent writing of her name above the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO was without her knowledge or consent. She claimed that the certified copy of the Protest 9 submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court of Ilagan, Isabela on July 5, 2013 and the retained copy of the subject Protest in her notarial file showed that neither Silvestre nor Esmenia signed above the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO. 10

After notarization, Atty. Dannug-Salucon claimed that she had no knowledge where Esmenia brought or filed the subject Protest. She only knew of Esmenia's act of writing "By Esmenia Corbito" above the name "SILVESTRE DC CORBITO" when her services were later engaged by Esmenia in the said DENR case where the subject Protest was filed.

Nonetheless, Atty. Dannug-Salucon acknowledged the erroneous entry relative to "NAMES & ADDRESSES OF PARTIES" to the Protest under Entry No. 158, where Estelita was indicated as the affiant instead of Esmenia. 11 She explained that it was an honest mistake of her secretary, Roseann Upriano-Enriquez (Roseann), who at that time was newly hired on the job. She maintained, however, that despite her lapse in supervising her employees in performing their functions, the entry corresponding to the competent evidence of identity, i.e., Postal Identity Card No. 2497547 issued in Aurora, Isabela and valid until July 2015, correctly pertained to the affiant Esmenia.

Meanwhile, on December 12, 2015, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Ilagan City, Isabela issued a Resolution, 12 dismissing the complaint filed against Esmenia and Atty. Dannug-Salucon for falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the RPC for lack of probable cause.

Report and Recommendation of

On July 18, 2016, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) issued its Report and Recommendation, 13 recommending the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Dannug-Salucon for lack of merit. Atty. Dannug-Salucon was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duty as a notary public absent clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence otherwise. The duplicate original copies of the subject Protest submitted to the Clerk of Court of Ilagan City, Isabela did not bear the signature of Silvestre. Also, the notarial registry book of Atty. Dannug-Salucon did not show that she notarized for Silvestre. Finally, the erroneous entry indicating the name of Estelita instead of Esmenia in the notarial registry book as the person who supposedly appeared before Atty. Dannug-Salucon was sufficiently explained by Roseann, respondent's newly-hired office secretary at that time.

On December 7, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP CBD to dismiss the complaint. 14

The complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 15 which was, however, denied by the IBP Board in its May 28, 2019 Resolution 16 for failure to adduce new reasons or arguments to justify the reversal of the December 7, 2017 Resolution.

Issue

The issue to be resolved in this case is whether Atty. Dannug-Salucon violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules) when: (a) she notarized the subject Protest without Silvestre DC Corbito, one of the affiants therein, personally appearing and signing before her; and (b) she erroneously entered the name of Estelita as the affiant instead of Esmenia in the notarial registry book submitted to the Clerk of Court.

A notary public is empowered to perform the following acts: acknowledgements, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessing, and copy certifications, among others. 17 Further, Section 5, Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, provides that a notary public shall not:

(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.

(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. (Emphasis supplied)

A notarial certificate is a part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public. It bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided by the Notarial Rules. 18

Admittedly, Atty. Dannug-Salucon affixed her signature and seal on the notarial certificate despite the non-appearance of one of the affiants, Silvestre. Such was inferred from the fact that no signature was affixed above the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO and the competent proof of Silvestre's identity was left blank. Atty. Dannug-Salucon's act of signing the notarial certificate, notwithstanding the incomplete document, is a clear violation of the Notarial Rules.

Granting that only one of the affiants, i.e., Esmenia, decided to pursue the execution of the subject Protest, this does not exculpate Atty. Dannug-Salucon from her duty to abide by the Notarial Rules not to affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. Patently, there was no signature above SILVESTRE DC CORBITO when the subject Protest was executed and notarized by respondent Atty. Dannug-Salucon. Her failure to cross out the name of Silvestre DC Corbito as one of the affiants therein provided an opportunity for unscrupulous persons to sign the document despite not having participated in its due execution or personally appearing before the notary public for its notarization. In this case, respondent's negligence facilitated the intercalation by Esmenia of the subject document by writing "By: Esmenia Corbito" above the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO after the notarization of the document. This is precisely the situation that is sought to be prevented in requiring notaries public to notarize only complete documents.

Respondent's lack of participation or consent in Esmenia's writing "By: Esmenia Corbito" above the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO would not serve to justify or excuse her negligence. As a notary public, respondent is expected to observe utmost care in the performance of her duties as "[n]otarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." 19 She could have easily deleted the name SILVESTRE DC CORBITO before notarizing the said document. However, she failed to do so. Verily, Atty. Dannug-Salucon's negligence amounted to a violation of Section 5, Rule IV of the Notarial Rules.

Furthermore, it is undisputed that respondent's notarial register bore an erroneous entry, wherein Estelita was named as the principal instead of Esmenia. She attributed such erroneous entry to her newly-hired office secretary, who inadvertently entered the name of Estelita instead that of Esmenia. Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules provides that:

(a) for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:

(1) the entry number and page number;

(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;

(3) the type of notarial act;

(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;

(5) the name and address of each principal;

(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;

(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity;

(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;

(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and

(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.

(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.

Clearly, a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in their notarial register and cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility by shifting the blame to their secretary. 20 The act of recording such entries in the notarial register is among the duties of a notary public. Nonetheless, we recognize the explanation of her office secretary, Roseann, as regards the events that transpired leading to the erroneous entry of the name of Estelita in the notarial register instead of that of Esmenia. 21

In summary, Atty. Dannug-Salucon's act of notarizing an incomplete document and her failure to correctly enter the name of Esmenia as the principal of the subject Protest, are not sufficient grounds to disbar her. Complainants failed to prove by substantial evidence that Atty. Dannug-Salucon committed any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Considering the attendant circumstances of this case and the violations committed by Atty. Dannug-Salucon, we find that a penalty less severe than disbarment would suffice. We consider reprimand with stern warning appropriate under the circumstances, as well as the revocation of her notarial commission, if presently commissioned, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Maria Catherine L. Dannug-Salucon is hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Accordingly, her notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and she is hereby DISQUALIFIED from being reappointed as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Maria Catherine L. Dannug-Salucon as an attorney-at-law; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their guidance and information.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, Vol. I, unpaginated.

2.Id. at 5.

3.Id. at 7-8.

4.Supra note 1.

5.Id.

6.Id., unpaginated.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. Vol. II, p. 40.

12.Id. Vol. I, pp. 121-125.

13.Rollo, Vol. II, unpaginated.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17. NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULE, Rule IV, Section 1.

18. NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULE, Rule II, Section 8.

19.Bote v. Eduardo, 491 Phil. 198, 203 (2005).

20.Spouses Chambon v. Ruiz, 817 Phil. 712, 721 (2017).

21.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 171-172.