THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10056. October 4, 2017.]
VICTOR L. MEJIA, complainant,vs. ATTY. RUFINO B. BAÑAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: ISHCcT
"A.C. No. 10056 (VICTOR L. MEJIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUFINO B. BAÑAS, Respondent.) — This administrative case stems from the complaint filed on December 27, 2008 by the complainant, for himself and in behalf of his co-heirs of the estates of the late Spouses Manuel Daoel and Oliva Lizardo-Daoel (Spouses Daoel), and Columna S. Lizardo. (Lizardo) against the respondent for the latter's violation of the rules of law and the code of ethics of the legal profession, and for thereby causing havoc in the management of the real estate, and the dissipation of the personal properties of the estates. 1
The complainant alleges that he is one of the legitimate heirs of the late Spouses Daoel and of Lizardo, who had all died intestate without any known debts, and who had left no surviving ascendants or descendants in the direct line of succession; that the deceased had left only collateral relatives, including himself; and that he had been appointed as the new administrator of the estates of the Spouses Daoel and Lizardo by virtue of a special power of attorney executed in his favor by his co-heirs pending the issuance of the letters of administration by the probate court. 2
On November 3, 2006, 3 the complainant and his co-heirs jointly decided to terminate the legal services of the respondent as their counsel upon discovering several flagrant irregularities that made them lose their trust and confidence in him. Their discovery led to their filing of criminal cases against the former administrator of the properties of the estates. According to the complainant, the respondent was thereby guilty for gross ignorance of the law, falsification, grave abuse of discretion, grave abuse of authority and exaction, 4 which infractions caused problems in the management of the properties of the estates, and prompted him to institute the complaint herein directly with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for himself and for his co-heirs.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the IBP Director for Bar Discipline required the respondent to file his answer. However, he ultimately did not file the answer despite seeking an extension of the period to file the answer on February 8, 2008.
Thus, the IBP set the mandatory conference on August 13, 2008. Considering that the respondent did not appear at the mandatory conference, IBP Investigating Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag terminated the conference and required the parties to submit their respective verified position papers to avoid further delay. 5 After the respondent did not file his position paper, IBP Commissioner Hababag rendered his findings and recommendations based on the pleadings filed by the complainant. 6
In due course, IBP Commissioner Hababag submitted his report and recommendation 7 finding merit in the complaint and recommending that the respondent be suspended as notary public for two years. 8
In Resolution No. XX-2012-497 dated December 14, 2012, 9 the IBP Board of Governors concurred with the Investigating Commissioner's report and recommendation, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Atty. Rufino B. Bañas Commission as Notary Public is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years.
It is noted that neither party filed a motion for recommendation or petition for review. 10
Did the respondent violate the Notarial Law?
Ruling of the Court
The complaint is meritorious.
Resolution No. XX-2012-497 dated December 14, 2012 of the IBP Board of Governors is well-taken. We adopt the findings thereby made as to the charges against the respondent, viz.:
It is emphasized that the respondent failed to file his Answer despite his motion for extension to file answer. Likewise, he failed to file his Position Paper.
The complainant sufficiently proved his charge against the respondent as evidence (sic) by the following:
1. Revocation of Special Power of Attorney notarized by the respondent known as Doc. No. 248; Page No. 51; Book No. LXXXII; Series of 2007. It is very clear that Natividad Undag, the principal signatory did not sign said document but somebody else. The word "For" should have warned the respondent that Natividad Undag did not sign the document. (Annex "F", Complaint Affidavit) CAacTH
2. Memorandum of Agreement notarized by the respondent known as Doc. No. 250; Page No. 51; Book No. LXXXII; Series of 2007. It is very clear that Natividad Undag, the Party of the First Party, did not sign said document but somebody else. The word "For" should have warned the respondent that Natividad Undag did not sign the document. (Annex "H", Complaint Affidavit)
3. Notice of Termination of Legal Services dated November 3, 2006. (Annex "E", Complaint Affidavit) 11
The respondent's notarizing documents and placing his notarial seal thereon despite the absence of one of the parties constituted a violation of the Notarial Law. It bears stressing that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signatures and notarial seals on documents unless the persons who signed the documents were the same individuals executing and personally appearing before them to attest to the truth of what were stated therein.
Under the following provisions of Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, 12 acknowledgments should be made in accordance with mandated requirements, specifically:
Rule II
Section 1. Acknowledgment. — "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
(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 these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. — The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the particular document presented to him for notarization, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party as well as to ascertain whether the document is the party's free act or deed. Every lawyer commissioned as notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of his commission, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Verily, notarization is neither a perfunctory nor a mindless act because it converts a private document into a public instrument, and makes the document admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face, and it is for this reason that every notary public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notarized documents will be eroded. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court SUSPENDS respondent Atty. Rufino B. Bañas from being granted a notarial commission for a period of two (2) years effective immediately, with a warning that any future breach of his duties as a notary public will be dealt with more severely. IAETDc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 13.
4.Id. at 2-4.
5.Id. at 45.
6.Id. at 76.
7.Id. at 76-79.
8.Id. at 79.
9.Id. at 75.
10.Id. at 80.
11.Id. at 78.
12. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
13.Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, Jr., A.C. No. 7781, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 1, 6-8.