THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11640. July 19, 2017.]
ALLAN F. SALAZAR, petitioner,vs. ATTY. ALFEO T. SICCUAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11640 (Allan F. Salazar vs. Atty. Alfeo T. Siccuan). — For resolution of the Court is a complaint against respondent Atty. Alfeo T. Siccuan filed by complainant Allan F. Salazar for violation of Rule IV, Section 2 (b) (2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 1
The factual findings are summarized in the Report and Recommendation 2 of Commissioner Antonio Ray A. Ortiguera of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP), viz.:
The Complaint essentially avers that Atty. Siccuan notarized a fictitious deed of sale, containing a forged signature of Mr. Salazar, without Mr. Salazar personally appearing to subscribe and swear to the same.
As alleged by Mr. Salazar in his Complaint, the controversy began sometime in September 2010 when he obtained a Php600,000.00 loan from a certain Ms. Lily S. Landua. In connection with the loan, Mr. Salazar agreed to sell a house and lot to Ms. Landua for Php5,300,000.00. The terms of the sale were that the Php600,000.00 will be treated as partial payment; while the balance of Php4,700,000.00 will be paid in 3 months as follows:
1. Php1,500,000.00 in cash; and
2. Php3,200,000.00 through a bank loan obtained by Ms. Landua using the subject property as collateral.
Pursuant to the terms of the sale, Ms. Landua executed a Php1,500,000.00 promissory note to Mr. Salazar. As for the Php3,200,000.00 bank loan, in order to use the property as collateral, Ms. Landua requested Mr. Salazar to sign an undated deed of sale and surrender to her the title of the property, i.e., TCT No. T-118861. Mr. Salazar complied with Ms. Landua's requests with the understanding that the deed of sale will not be notarized until the bank issues a notice of approval and guaranty and that the proceeds of the loan amounting to Php3,200,000.00 is paid to Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar alleges that Ms. Landua failed to comply with her obligations. Instead, Mr. Salazar was surprised to learn that Ms. Landua filed a case against him on September 14, 2011 for unlawful detainer on the basis of the deed of absolute sale he signed, which had been notarized by Atty. Carlos C. Pormento without his knowledge and consent. ASEcHI
While the unlawful detainer case was ongoing, Mr. Salazar also discovered that TCT No. T-118861 had been cancelled and a new title, TCT No. 005-2011003142, was issued in the name of Ms. Landua. Apparently, the new title was issued on the basis of another deed of sale dated February 5, 2011 purportedly between Mr. Salazar, as vendor, and Ms. Landua and her husband, as vendees for the amount of Php1,500,000.00 and notarized by herein respondent Atty. Siccuan. This deed of sale is separate and distinct from the deed of sale that was notarized by Atty. Pormento.
Mr. Salazar claims that his signature in the deed of sale notarized by Atty. Siccuan was forged. Mr. Salazar further claims that he did not subscribe, swear and appear before Atty. Siccuan. Consequently, Atty. Siccuan's act of notarizing the deed of sale was in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules). To support Mr. Salazar's claim that he did not subscribe, swear and appear before Atty. Siccuan, he points out that the Acknowledgment did not conform to the requirements for competent evidence of identity, namely: 1) government issued identification cards; 2) oath or affirmation of a credible witness/es; or 3) personally known to the notary public, as it stated that only community tax certificates were presented to Atty. Siccuan. 3
In his Answer, 4 respondent Siccuan denied any irregularity in his notarization of the deed of sale. He alleged that Mr. Salazar, Ms. Landua, Mr. Landua and two other persons appeared before him, accompanied by his long-time friend, Ms. Josephine Lope. When he requested for the parties to present proof of identities, they could only present their cedulas. On the basis of this and Ms. Lope's confirmation that she personally knows Mr. Salazar and Ms. Landua, he notarized the document.
On the issue that the Acknowledgment did not conform to the requirements for competent evidence of identifications, Siccuan argued that Rule II, Section 12 of the Notarial Rules also allow proof of identity to be established by an oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the Notary Public and to the individual whose identity is being established. In this case, it was Ms. Lope who served as the credible witness.
The Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Ortiguera found that Siccuan violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Notarial Rules for notarizing the deed of sale without the personal appearance of the affiant and his competent evidence of identity, as required by the rules. It discussed that respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted in damage not only to those directly affected by the notarized document but also to the integrity and significance of a notary public. Taking this into consideration, Commissioner Ortiguera recommended that Siccuan be suspended from the practice of law for six months and be suspended from notarial commission for one year, if the same is still existing.
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XXI-2014-754 dated October 10, 2014, adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Alfeo T. Siccuan's notarial commission if presently commissioned is immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for two years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.5
Siccuan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 6 which the IBP Board of Governors denied. The new Resolution No. XXII-2016-442 dated August 27, 2016 affirming Resolution No. XXI-2014-754 reads as follows:
RESOLVED TO DENY respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors. 7
Issue
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Siccuan should be administratively sanctioned for violating Rule IV, Section 2 (b) (2) of the Notarial Rules.
Ruling of the Court
After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds Resolution No. XXI-2014-754 in accord with the pertinent rules and jurisprudence on bar discipline.
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. 8
In the present case, Siccuan, as duly found by the IBP, failed to faithfully comply with his duties as a notary public.
Rule II, Section 1, of the Notarial Rules provides that: ITAaHc
"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.
Paragraph (b) requires that persons acknowledging the document be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity. Siccuan, in this case, did not claim that he personally knew the parties to the deed of sale. Consequently, presentation of competent evidence of identity was necessary. On this point, Rule II, Section 12, of the Notarial Rules states that:
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.
Thus, under the Notarial Rules, as amended by this Court in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) is no longer considered as competent evidence of identity as it does not bear a photograph and a signature of the individual concerned. In Baylon vs. Almo, 9 We ruled that notaries public should not rely on CTCs or cedulas considering the ease with which these are obtained these days and its unreliability to prove the identity of the person. Therefore, in the absence of an identification document, there must be an oath or affirmation of 1) a credible witness not privy to the instrument, who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individuals; or 2) two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
Siccuan's argument that the rules were complied with when Ms. Lope, who is not a party to the instrument, was presented to confirm the identities of the parties is of no moment. As correctly raised by the IBP, Ms. Lope's affidavit only mentioned that she personally knew Ms. Landua and Atty. Siccuan. There was no mention of Mr. Salazar. Hence, as far as the latter is concerned, Siccuan notarized the deed of sale without competent evidence of identity. By notarizing a document allegedly signed by Mr. Salazar, not personally known to him and without having identified him through competent evidence of identity, Siccuan committed a violation of Rule IV, Section 2 (b), of the Notarial Rules, to wit:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions.
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.
For having violated the Notarial Rules, 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.
All told, Siccuan should be reminded that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. 10 In Lee vs. Atty. Tambago, 11 the Court perpetually disqualified Atty. Tambago from reappointment as a notary public for failure to comply with the elementary formalities in the performance of his duties, one of which is the duty to require the parties to present a valid competent evidence of identity. CHTAIc
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION Resolution No. XXI-2014-754 dated October 10, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 13-3870. Atty. Alfeo T. Siccuan is GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still existing, is REVOKED. Further, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. As modified, he is also PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this decision be appended to Atty. Alfeo T. Siccuan's personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008.
2.Rollo, pp. 276-284.
3.Id. at 276-277.
4.Id. at 28-31.
5.Id. at 274.
6.Id. at 311.
7.Id. at 373.
8.Bartolome v. Basilio, A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015, 772 SCRA 213.
9. A.C. No. 6962, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 248.
10.Agbulos vs. Viray, A.C. No. 7350, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 1, 8.
11. A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008, 544 SCRA 393.