SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10966. January 11, 2016.]
FERNANDO C. CABRALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOEL P. DADIS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10966 — (Fernando C. Cabrales v. Atty. Joel P. Dadis)
In his verified complaint 1 dated May 15, 2013, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant Fernando C. Cabrales (Cabrales) charged respondent Atty. Joel P. Dadis (Atty. Dadis) of violating Section 12, paragraph (b) and Section 1, No. 6, Paragraph (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice 2 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
According to Cabrales, Atty. Dadis prepared and notarized a document denominated as "Notice Against Demolition" 3 allegedly executed by Andrea Saturnino (Saturnino) by placing her thumb mark therein. In notarizing the said document, Atty. Dadis failed to ensure that there were two (2) witnesses to attest the affixing of Saturnino's thumb mark; that he failed to indicate the required remarks below Saturnino's thumb mark under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice; and that he failed to ascertain the identity of the affiant and require proof of her identity.
Cabrales added that Saturnino's alleged thumb mark was highly doubtful as she was of advanced age and was physically incapacitated to travel. Cabrales prayed that Atty. Dadis be suspended from the practice of law or be meted with other appropriate penalties.
In his verified answer, 4 dated July 2, 2013, Atty. Dadis countered that Saturnino was his client in a Petition for Certiorari5 filed before the Court of Appeals. Thus, Saturnino was personally known to him.
Atty. Dadis asserted that Saturnino personally appeared before him; that Saturnino presented her Senior Citizen's ID 6 as competent proof of her identity at the time of the execution and notarization of the document; and that Filmarose Villarente (Villarente) and Elizabeth Cuaresma were the two (2) witnesses present during the execution of the document, as attested by their respective affidavits. 7
Atty. Dadis admitted, however, that he failed to indicate on the face of the document the written remarks under the law. Nevertheless, he defended that there was substantial compliance and that he had no intent to violate the law. Atty. Dadis, as a neophyte lawyer, begged for compassion and leniency.
In a notice, 8 dated August 7, 2013, the IBP-CBD required the parties to attend a mandatory conference on September 9, 2013. During the said conference, only Atty. Dadis appeared. On even date, the IBP-CBD issued an order 9 requiring the parties to submit their respective positions papers within ten (10) days from receipt.
In a letter, 10 dated September 12, 2013, Cabrales informed the IBP-CBD that he was no longer interested to pursue the administrative case. On the other hand, Atty. Dadis submitted his position paper, dated October 10, 2013, before the IBP-CBD.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 11 dated November 11, 2013, Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera (Investigating Commissioner) found that Atty. Dadis violated Sections 1 (b), 5 and 6 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice because he failed to included the matters specified under the law when a thumb mark signature was affixed by an affiant. CAIHTE
The report stated, however, that Atty. Dadis' request for leniency should be considered because of the following: (1) his full reliance that the affiant, being his client, was personally known to him and could vouch for her identity and personal circumstances; (2) his voluntary admission of his omission; (3) being a new lawyer, he must be given a fresh opportunity to face the challenges of the legal profession; and (4) that there was no pecuniary damage or prejudice caused to the parties or third persons. Thus, it was recommended that Atty. Dadis should only be sternly warned.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-839, 12 the IBP Board of Governors (Board) reversed and set aside the report and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner. Instead, for violation of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, the Board resolved to admonish Atty. Dadis with warning that repetition of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation of the Board.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. 13
Under Section 1 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization subject to the following requisites:
1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;
3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and
4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
Evidently, the notarial rules provide a more stringent requirement to ensure that the affiant is truly the person that placed such thumb mark. This lowers the possibility of fraud and mischief involving thumb mark signatures in notarized documents. Failure to comply with the requirements constitutes as a violation of Sections 5 and 6, Rule IV of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which provide:
SECTION 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. — A notary public shall not: . . .
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.
SECTION 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. — A notary public shall not notarize:
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or . . .
In the case at bench, the Notice against Demolition, which was notarized by Atty. Dadis, contained a thumb mark. Thus, it was incumbent upon him to ascertain that the requirements under the law were complied with. It was established during the investigation of the IBP-CBD that the affiant Saturnino was personally known to him because she was his client and she also presented her Senior Citizen ID as proof of identification. Further, Villarente and Elizabeth Cuaresma were the two (2) witnesses that were present during the execution of the document.
Yet, as can be gleaned on the face of the document, Atty. Dadis still failed to comply with the other requirements under the law, particularly: (1) that both witnesses must sign their own names in addition to the thumb mark; and (2) that the notary public writes below the thumb mark the names of the affiant, his witnesses, and the notary public. These omissions were readily admitted by Atty. Dadis.
Atty. Dadis admits that he made an honest mistake and asks for understanding and compassion for his omission and undertakes that he would be more careful in the discharge of his duties as a notary public. The IBP-CBD took into account that Atty. Dadis was still a new lawyer, with much to learn; while the Board went further by recommending that Atty. Dadis only be admonished. DETACa
The Court grants the request of tempered clemency that Atty. Dadis should only be admonished due to the following reasons: (1) that he readily admitted his omission and no bad faith was attributed to him, (2) that his omission was unsubstantial and no person was prejudiced therein; and (3) that he is a first-time offender and still a neophyte lawyer. We opine that Atty. Dadis had already tasted a painful lesson in notarizing a seemingly innocuous document. This experience would certainly teach him that a notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. 14
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joel P. Dadis is ADMONISHED with a WARNING that repetition of any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
3. Id. at 48.
4. Id. at 12-18.
5. Id. at 67-85.
6. Id. at 49.
7. Id. at 93-94.
8. Id. at 22.
9. Id. at 29.
10. Id. at 30.
11. Id. at 99-104.
12. Id. at 98.
13. Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87.
14. Id.