FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9714. March 20, 2019.]
JIMY R. MORALES, complainant, vs.ATTY. MARIFE R. MACASOCOL-ALEGRE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9714 (Jimy R. Morales v. Atty. Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre). — This is a complaint 1 for disbarment filed by Jimy R. Morales (complainant) against Atty. Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre (respondent).
Complainant and his estranged wife, Amelia Morales (Amelia), were the owners of a house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 120401, located at Barangay Lagao, General Santos City (property). 2 On July 1, 2011, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale 3 and a Deed of Transfer of Rights with Conformity of the Developer 4 concerning the property (documents), which she prepared and were signed by Amelia as the vendor, Jeanita C. Borres (Jeanita) as the vendee. 5 Complainant is also named as a signatory in the documents, with a signature appearing above his name bearing semblance to that of Amelia's. In the Deed of Absolute Sale, respondent acknowledged that Amelia and Jeanita personally appeared before her, that they are the same persons who executed it, and they acknowledged that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. In addition, the Deed of Absolute Sale was duly signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses. 6 As for the Deed of Transfer of Rights, respondent attested that it was subscribed and sworn to before her. 7
This prompted complainant to file the complaint against respondent. According to him, his signatures in both documents were forged. Complainant claims it was impossible for him to have signed the documents since he was on tour of duty abroad as a seaman when they were supposedly signed. 8 Respondent's act of notarizing the documents despite his absence/non-appearance is a violation of Section 14 (a) and (b), Rule II, 9 Section 1 (a) (1), Rule IV, 10 and Section 1 (a), 1 (b), (7), (8) and (10), Rule XI of Administrative Matter No. 02-8-13-SC or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; 11 Rule 1.01, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility; 12 and Section 3 (e) 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 14 Complainant claimed that he suffered undue injuries as a result of respondent's act. 15 aDSIHc
Respondent denied the existence of forgery since it was Amelia who signed on behalf of the complainant (and not complainant himself) 16 based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by the complainant in favor of Amelia. In addition, Amelia paid for the property using her Home Development Mutual Funds (HDMF) contributions. Respondent also argued that complainant's name does not appear in the acknowledgment portion of the Deed of Absolute Sale. 17
Investigating Commissioner Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner Rodriguez, Jr.) recommended that respondent be found guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility; that she be suspended from the practice of law for one year; that her incumbent commission, if any, be revoked; and that she be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately. 18 While he agreed that no forgery was committed since complainant's signature does not appear in the documents, Investigating Commissioner Rodriguez, Jr. still found that respondent erred in notarizing the documents without the presence and written consent of the complainant. 19 Accordingly, he held that she violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits the performance of a notarial act if a person involved as signatory to the instrument or document: (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules. Respondent was likewise found to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 20
On February 20, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-171 21 in CBD Case No. 14-4075 adopting and approving the recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Rodriguez, Jr. since it is fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws. Thus, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to: (1) revoke respondent's notarial commission, if presently commissioned; (2) disqualify her from being commissioned as notary public for two years; and (3) suspend her from the practice of law for one year.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. 22 The IBP Board of Governors resolved in its Resolution No. XXII-2016-619 23 to reduce her penalty of suspension from the practice of law to six months, in accordance with the penalties imposed on cases of similar nature.
We concur with the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:
Sec. 2. Prohibitions. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
The provisions of the rules are clear. A document should not be notarized if a signatory is not present and not personally known to or identified by the notary public through competent evidence. The purpose of this is to verify the genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein and the due execution of the document. 24
In this case, respondent herself admitted that complainant was not present when she notarized the documents. It was Amelia who signed on the space provided for complainant. Respondent relied on the SPA dated June 6, 2008, which complainant executed in favor of Amelia. According to respondent, the SPA empowered Amelia to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale and Deed of Transfer of Rights on behalf of complainant. ETHIDa
Under the SPA, complainant allowed Amelia to perform the following acts in his name, place, and stead:
1. To buy parcels of land for and in my behalf and to process for its titling in my name and to pay the necessary taxes or the same with any government agencies concern [sic];
2. To apply for a housing loan with Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF);
3. To process building permits, application for electrical water and telephone connection with any appropriate government or private agency;
4. To make, sign, receive, execute and deliver papers, instruments, documents and agreements pertinent to the herein above powers; 25
We have long settled that a SPA must be strictly construed. 26 An agent cannot go beyond the powers granted therein. Nowhere in said document did complainant authorize Amelia to sell the property. By no stretch of imagination can respondent successfully claim that the authority to buy parcels of land includes the authority to sell a property. It was thus erroneous for the respondent to have notarized the deeds on the basis of the SPA.
Respondent's lack of knowledge of the estrangement of complainant and Amelia likewise does not justify her notarization of the documents. Knowledge of the state of the parties' marriage is immaterial. The fact remains that Amelia was not authorized under the SPA to sell complainant's interests in any property. Further, had respondent bothered to carefully scrutinize the documents presented by Amelia, she might not have found herself in this predicament. Regrettably, We find that she failed to comply with Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
In addition, respondent also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:
Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
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.
In notarizing the documents despite complainant's absence and Amelia's lack of authority to sign on his behalf, respondent has fallen short of her duties as a lawyer. 27 She should have faithfully observed the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice given the significance of the notarization of a document which for one, "it converts a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity." 28 Accordingly, respondent must be penalized for her actions.
We agree with the penalties imposed by the IBP Board of Governors. This is consistent with recent jurisprudence wherein we imposed the following penalties on a notary public who violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: (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. 29 Considering the gravity of the offense committed by the respondent, We find the penalties meted by the IBP Board of Governors on her to be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, We AFFIRM Resolution No. XXII-2016-619 in CBD Case No. 14-4075 dated November 29, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors finding respondent Atty. Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS. Her notarial commission, if any, is immediately REVOKED and she is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and noted in respondent's record as a member of the Bar. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 2 & 5.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 6.
5. Note: As executed with the marital consent of Arnold V. Borres, spouse of the vendee, Jeanita C. Borres.
6. Note: No witness has actually signed the Deed of Absolute Sale.
7.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
8.Id. at 151.
9. Sec. 14. Signature Witnessing. — The term "signature witnessing" refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and x x x
10. Sec. 1. Powers. — (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:
(1) acknowledgments;
xxx xxx xxx
11. Sec. 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied.
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:
xxx xxx xxx
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;
xxx xxx xxx
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and x x x
12. Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
13. Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Rollo, p. 12.
15. Id. at 2.
16. Id. at 151.
17. Id. at 151-152.
18. Rollo, p. 155.
19. Id. at 152-153.
20. Id. at 154-155.
21. Id. at 148.
22. Id. at 156-163.
23. Id. at 186-187.
24. Almario v. Llera-Agno, A.C. No. 10689, January 8, 2018.
25. Rollo, p. 165.
26. Mancol, Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017; Bautista-Spille v. NICORP Management and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 214057, October 19, 2015, 773 SCRA 67; and Angeles v. Philippine National Railways, G.R. No. 150128, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 444.
27. Endaya v. Palay, A.C. No. 10150, September 21, 2016, 803 SCRA 565.
28. Spouses Balbin v. Baranda, Jr., A.C. No. 12041, November 5, 2018.
29. Id. See also Orola v. Baribar, A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018.