SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12061. October 16, 2019.][formerly CBD Case No. 15-4472]
HEIR OF HERMINIGILDO A. UNITE, REPRESENTED BY HIS SOLE HEIR FLORENTINO S. UNITE, AND HEIR OF ODYLON UNITE TORRICES, REPRESENTED BY SOLE HEIR MIGUEL B. TORRICES, complainants, vs.ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 October 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12061 [formerly CBD Case No. 15-4472] — HEIR OF HERMINIGILDO A. UNITE, represented by his sole heir FLORENTINO S. UNITE, and HEIR of ODYLON UNITE TORRICES, represented by sole heir MIGUEL B. TORRICES, complainants,versus ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN, respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 dated December 22, 2017 filed by respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman 2 (Atty. Guzman), assailing Resolution Nos. XXII-2016-160 3 dated February 25, 2016 and XXII-2017-1271 4 dated April 20, 2017 issued by the Integrated Board of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors (Board). In Resolution No. XXII-2016-160, the IBP Board resolved to adopt with modification the findings of facts and recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Investigating Commissioner, by increasing the period of disqualification of Atty. Guzman from being commissioned as a notary public from one (1) year to two (2) years, and adding a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. In Resolution No. XXII-2017-1271, the IBP Board denied Atty. Guzman's motion for reconsideration.
The present matter arose from a Petition for Disbarment 5 dated January 8, 2015 filed before the IBP by the Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, represented by his sole heir, Florentino S. Unite (Florentino), and Heir of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by his sole heir, Miguel B. Torrices (Miguel), against Atty. Guzman for alleged violation of Rule 10.01 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 7
The complainants, Florentino and Miguel, alleged that, on November 24, 2010, Atty. Guzman notarized a "Deed of Absolute Sale of Portion of a Registered Land" (subject Deed) between Jose Unite Torrices (vendor; Jose) and Jimmy Concepcion (Jimmy), involving Lot No. 2920, Pls-706 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-20432(S). The complainants alleged that Atty. Guzman connived with Jose and the members of his family, illegally took advantage of his notarial commission and participated in the said simulated sale.
The complainants further alleged that TCT No. T-20432(S) was fraudulently registered under Jose's name as the transfer to him from Teodora Unite was done through another defectively notarized Deed of Donation Inter-Vivos. Through the said Deed, the subject Lot No. 2920 was sold to Jimmy for P40,000.00. Moreover, the complainants alleged that Atty. Guzman merely accepted a community tax certificate (CTC) and did not require the said parties to present proper identification, as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In the joint verification/certification, Florentino stated that he earlier filed before the IBP a petition for disbarment 8 against Atty. Guzman on December 9, 2014 for notarizing another deed.
In an Order 9 dated January 12, 2015, the IBP CBD Director for Bar Discipline required Atty. Guzman to submit his Answer to the complaint. In his Answer, 10 Atty. Guzman denied the charges and alleged that he required all parties to present at least two current government identification cards in addition to their CTCs. The complainants filed a Reply, 11 stating that the subject Deed itself proves that Atty. Guzman did not comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In a Notice of Mandatory Conference 12 dated March 18, 2015, the IBP CBD Investigating Commissioner directed the parties to appear on May 13, 2015 and to submit their respective briefs at least three days prior thereto. Both parties filed the same. In an Order 13 dated June 4, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner noted that both parties appeared during the mandatory conference and then directed them to submit their respective verified position papers, together with the affidavit/s of their witness/es, if any. Both parties complied.
In a Report and Recommendation 14 dated October 27, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Guzman did not violate the CPR nor his Lawyer's Oath. However, Atty. Guzman violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that his notarial commission be revoked and he be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. The Investigating Commissioner ratiocinated as follows:
In his Answer and Position Paper, respondent alleged that he required Torrices [(Jose)] to present government-issued IDs bearing his photographs and signature. To support this defense, respondent not only presented a photocopy each of Torrices' Voter's ID and Senior Citizen's ID, but also submitted the affidavits of Llewelyn, Spouses Concepcion, and Torrices, all stating that respondent asked the parties to present their government-issued IDs. Yet for all of respondent's allegations, the very [Acknowledgment] on the deed clearly shows that no government-issued ID is indicated therein, except Torrices' community tax certificate, x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, respondent gave no explanation why — after asking for, and was presented with, government-issued IDs by Torrices — he did not use any of the said government-issued IDs in notarizing the deed, preferring to use instead his community tax certificate. The plain and simple truth is that no government-issued ID was presented to respondent at the time he notarized the deed.
Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines Acknowledgment as an act wherein an individual, on a single occasion:
a. x x x;
b. is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules; and
c. x x x.
From the foregoing definition, it is clear that unless the parties to the document are personally known to the notary public, he must exert effort to verify his identity by requiring the presentation of at least one (1) competent evidence of identity, as defined [in] the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
In the instant case, there is nothing in the Acknowledgment portion of the Deed stating that respondent personally knew Torrices. Thus, it was incumbent upon him — as mandated in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — to require Torrices to present a competent evidence of identity to verify that he is, indeed, the Torrices who executed and signed the deed. This, however, respondent failed to do, being satisfied with Torrices' community tax certificate alone.
xxx xxx xxx
Neither can respondent's belated submission of the government-issued IDs of Torrices before this Office be considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The fact that the said IDs were not even mentioned in the Acknowledgment portion of the Deed only shows that their presentation is a mere afterthought meant to remedy respondent's earlier failure to comply with 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. x x x
In Williams, 15 the Supreme Court held that the omission of the community tax certificate number 16 of the affiant in the [Acknowledgment] is proof that the said document was not required by the therein respondent to be presented to him, x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Similar to Williams, respondent did not indicate the details of any government-issued ID he claims to have been presented to him by Torrices when he notarized the deed. This clearly shows that contrary to his claim, he actually did not require Torrices to present the required competent evidence of the latter's identity at all in violation of the 2004 Notarial Practice. 17
In the assailed Resolution No. XXII-2016-160, the IBP Board resolved to adopt with modification the findings of facts and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, by increasing the period of disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public from one (1) year to two (2) years, and adding a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. In Resolution No. XXII-2017-1271, the IBP Board denied Atty. Guzman's motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, Atty. Guzman filed before the Court the present Petition for Review assailing the above IBP Resolutions. In a Resolution dated August 1, 2018, the Court required the complainants, Florentino and Miguel, to submit their comment within 10 days from notice. The complainants filed their Comment dated October 11, 2018, praying for the dismissal of the present. Petition for Review and for the imposition of a stiffer penalty in view of the Court's Resolution dated July 2, 2018 in A.C. No. 12062, Heir of Unite v. Guzman, 18 where Atty. Guzman notarized a Deed of Self-Adjudication with Sale on December 19, 2012 involving the same vendor, Jose, in violation of notarial rules similar to the present matter.
In the abovementioned Heir of Unite v. Guzman, the Court found Atty. Guzman guilty of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and CPR and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months (for the period of August 29, 2018 to February 29, 2019) and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years (for the period of August 29, 2018 to August 29, 2020). Portions of Heir of Unite v. Guzman read as follows:
While respondent argues that, apart from the CTC, he required all the parties to the Deed to present at least two (2) current government identification documents and conducted further interviews to ascertain their capacity and personality to enter into the transactions, the Deed itself, however, belies this contention. Had respondent indeed required — and had the parties presented — current government identification documents at the time of the Deed's notarization, respondent should have reflected these facts on the Deed's acknowledgement portion in the same manner that the Deed reflected Torrices' CTC. By notarizing the Deed notwithstanding the absence of the competent evidence of identity required by the Notarial Rules, respondent undoubtedly failed to properly perform his duty as a notary public.
In this regard, the Court disagrees with the IBP Board of [Governors'] finding that respondent personally knows the affiant, hence, the CTC suffices. Under Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules quoted above, a notary public may be excused from requiring the presentation of competent evidence of identity of the signatory before him only if such signatory is personally known to him. In this case, the acknowledgment portion of the Deed does not state that Torrices is personally known to respondent, as the Rules require; rather, it simply states that Torrices is known to me (respondent), thus:
Personally came and appeared before me on this _______ day of _________ at [sic] Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Jose U. Torrices with his CTC No. appearing below his signature known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged to that the same is her (sic) free act and voluntary deed. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In other words, nowhere in the Deed did respondent declare that Torrices is personally known to him so as to excuse the presentation of any of the enumerated competent evidence of identity. Moreover, it should be clarified that the phrase "personally known" contemplates the notary public's personal knowledge of the signatory's personal circumstances independent and irrespective of any representations made by the signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization. It entails awareness, understanding, or knowledge of the signatory's identity and circumstances gained through firsthand observation or experience which therefore serve as guarantee of the signatory's identity and thus eliminate the need for the verification process of documentary identification. In this case, if indeed respondent personally knows Torrices, as the IBP Board of Governors surmised, there would have been no need for respondent, as he asserted in his Answer, to require the parties to present at least two (2) current government identification documents and conduct further interviews to ascertain their capacity and personality to execute the Deed.
Lastly, as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. By notarizing the subject Deed, he engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct which makes him liable as well for violation of the CPR, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 thereof x x x. (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring in the original)
The Court adopts and approves Resolution No. XXII-2017-1271 dated April 20, 2017 of the IBP Board of Governors with modification by finding Atty. Guzman also liable for violation of Rule 1.01, 19 Canon 1 20 of the CPR, similar to the ruling in A.C. No. 12062. Moreover, in the case of Salazar v. Siccuan, 21 the Court held that for having violated the Notarial Rules, Atty. Siccuan also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the CPR which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
WHEREFORE, the Court adopts and approves with modification Resolution Nos. XXII-2016-160 dated February 25, 2016 and XXII-2017-1271 dated April 20, 2017 issued by the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 15-4472. Respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman is GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still existing, is immediately REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. Further, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
The suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by respondent. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
After he has fully served the above suspension, he shall submit to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) the corresponding certifications from the Office of the Executive Judge of the court where he constantly practices his legal profession and from the IBP Local Chapter where he is affiliated, affirming that he has ceased and desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in court during the period of suspension. Moreover, after he has fully served the above disqualification, he is also required to file a similar petition with similar certifications that he has not been commissioned as a notary public. Within two (2) weeks from respondent's submission, the OBC shall recommend to the Court whether the suspension and/or disqualification may already be lifted.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts, the OBC, and the IBP for their information and guidance. The OBC is directed to append a copy of this Resolution to respondent's record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 363-372.
2. Admitted to the Bar in 1986, See <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/lawlist/>.
3.Rollo, p. 258.
4.Id. at 317.
5.Id. at 2-10.
6. RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
7. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated July 6, 2004.
8. The Petition for Disbarment dated December 9, 2014 against Atty. Guzman was already resolved by the Court in Heir of Unite v. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062, July 2, 2018, accessed at <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64418>.
9.Rollo, pp. 106.
10.Id. at 110-113.
11.Id. at 116-124.
12.Id. at 115.
13.Id. at 172.
14.Id. at 260-266.
15.Williams v. Icao, 595 Phil. 938 (2008).
16. The document was notarized before the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice took effect.
17.Id. at 263-266.
18. See note 8.
19. RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
20. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
21. A.C. No. 11640, July 19, 2017.