Satuito v. Obra

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 13001. June 14, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5356]

FERDINAND G. SATUITO and MELCHOR G. SATUITO, complainants,vs. ATTY. JESUS A. OBRA and FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 13001 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5356] (Ferdinand G. Satuito and Melchor G. Satuito, Complainants, v. Atty. Jesus A. Obra and Francisco Ricafort, Respondents.) — This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint 1 filed by Ferdinand G. Satuito (Ferdinand) and Melchor G. Satuito (Melchor; collectively, complainants) against respondents Atty. Jesus A. Obra (Atty. Obra) and Francisco Ricafort (Ricafort), for Falsification of Public Documents in the notarial practice.

Antecedents

According to complainants, respondent Atty. Obra is a commissioned notary public for and in the third district of Albay while respondent Ricafort was a former lawyer who was disbarred by the Court in the case of Busiños v. Ricafort. 2 Complainants alleged that Atty. Obra is rarely in the 3rd district of Albay since he resides in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila and is an instructor in Arellano University School of Law in Menlo, Pasay City. Consequently, Ricafort, with the full knowledge and consent of Atty. Obra, has been unlawfully performing the notarial acts pertaining to the entries in Atty. Obra's notarial register at Ricafort's residence-office in Polangui, Albay. Said notarial register contains daily entries of acknowledgments, oaths, affirmations or jurats despite Atty. Obra's infrequent visits to Polangui and elsewhere in the third district of Albay. 3

On or about 12 August 2015, Atty. Obra purportedly prepared a falsified Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate With Absolute Sale (settlement deed) 4 in favor of his client, Rey Mark Rosales Rico (Rico), and the latter's cohorts, Reynaldo R. Rico, Jr. and Asuncion Rubinos, Jr. However, complainants denied ever executing said document in favor of Rico. Allegedly, complainants' signatures in the settlement deed and in their identification cards (IDs) are completely different. 5

Further, complainants never appeared before Atty. Obra or ever met him in any occasion contrary to his attestation in his notarial acknowledgment of the settlement deed. Complainants claimed it was Ricafort who unlawfully notarized said document. 6

For his part, Atty. Obra acknowledged that his office is located at Jupiter St., Brgy. Ilawod Centro Occidental, Polangui, Albay. However, his residence is not in Las Piñas City; he has been residing for more than five (5) years at his family's ancestral house at Brgy. Tomolin, Ligao City. While his two (2) children are living at a rented house in Las Piñas City, he only stays with them in the said place whenever he has business to attend to in Manila. 7

Atty. Obra further asserted that while he has been a professor at the Arellano University School of Law for a number of years, he merely taught in the school's "executive class program," which holds classes only on Saturdays and Sundays. Hence, his teaching schedule allows him to be at his office in Polangui, Albay from Mondays to Fridays except for the few occasions when he needed to be in Manila for court hearings or personal reasons. 8

Moreover, Atty. Obra maintained that he has been a commissioned notary public in the district of Albay for about five (5) years as of the filing of his Answer, and his notarial commission had been twice renewed by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City after finding no record against him of any violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Canons of Professional Ethics or any other rule or law. The allegations made by complainants are the same as those in the Affidavit-Complaint they filed before the Provincial Prosecutor of Albay on 21 November 2016 which was eventually dismissed in a Resolution dated 27 February 2017. 9

Atty. Obra also denied the allegation that Ricafort performed notarial acts in his stead. While Ricafort, his trusted chief-of-staff, attends to all preliminary tasks necessary for the strict compliance with the rules on notarial practice such as interviewing contracting parties, determining the identities of parties, requiring them to submit pertinent papers and making entries in the notarial register, it was still Atty. Obra who performs the notarial acts. At times, Atty. Obra would instruct Ricafort to draft legal documents subject to his review. Nonetheless, Ricafort, in the performance of his tasks, would at all times be under his supervision. 10

According to Atty. Obra, his client, Rico, has been to his office several times to cause the notarization of documents mostly involving the purchase of various real estate properties. A few days before 12 August 2015, Rico visited his office to request for the preparation of a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate with absolute sale. Atty. Obra, thereafter, instructed Ricafort to get the necessary details and draft the settlement deed, which was later reviewed by the former. 11

On 12 August 2015, Rico and his companions came to the office of Atty. Obra to have the settlement deed notarized. After Ricafort told Atty. Obra he had already determined the identities of the parties and that they all signed the document in his presence within his observation, he gave Atty. Obra the signed settlement deed together with the photocopies of the identification cards (IDs) of the parties. Atty. Obra compared the signature of Ferdinand in the settlement deed with the signature appearing in the photocopy of Ferdinand's Senior Citizen ID and was fully convinced that both signatures could only have been made by the same person. When Atty. Obra noticed there was no photocopy of the ID of Melchor, he called Ricafort and asked for an explanation. Ricafort told him that Melchor did not bring an ID with him but his brother, Ferdinand, vouched for his identity. Eventually, based on Ferdinand's guarantee and Melchor's signing of the settlement deed in front of him, Ricafort was convinced of his identity. As a final check, Atty. Obra came out of his private room, looked at the face of each party and confirmed with each one their signature on the settlement deed. Atty. Obra then notarized the settlement deed after exercising all the due diligence required of him as a notary public and after trying his best to strictly comply with the rules on notarial practice. 12

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In his Report and Recommendation, 13 the Investigating Commissioner assigned by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended for Atty. Obra to be admonished for relying on the assurance of another party to establish the identity of a co-signatory, who had no ID. Even if the alleged "brother" of the signatory to the settlement deed assured him of the identity of the latter, Atty. Obra should have refrained from notarizing said document without the required ID especially since the parties appearing before him were not personally known to him. Doing so shows him being remiss in his duty as a notary public. 14

As for Ferdinand's signature, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that Atty. Obra may have been unknowingly misled since the ID of Ferdinand submitted to him for purposes of notarization and the ID of Ferdinand attached to the present Complaint are actually identical in every respect except for the signature on the IDs. Further, Atty. Obra compared the faces of the affiants with the pictures in their IDs and when asked during the mandatory conference whether it was indeed Ferdinand who appeared before him, Atty. Obra was very candid in stating he does not remember anymore. Considering the similarity of the signature on the ID of Ferdinand submitted to Atty. Obra and the signature in the settlement deed, Atty. Obra acted in good faith and without any intention of violating any rule or law when he relied on the ID submitted to him. 15

Complainants did not dispute nor question the ID allegedly submitted to Atty. Obra. Since complainants have no personal knowledge of the incident on 12 August 2015, they could not dispute Atty. Obra's account of what occurred in his office at that time. Accordingly, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that Atty. Obra falsified or helped his client in falsifying the settlement deed. 16

The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution 17 dated 15 December 2019 adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, hence:

RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, for failure to substantiate the allegation against Atty. Francisco Ricafort the case is hereby DISMISSED, while Atty. Jesus A. Obra who attempted to establish identity of affiant through the brother, is hereby ADMONISHED to be careful in the discharge of his notarial duties. 18

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopts the findings of the IBP except for the recommended penalty.

Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. It is not an empty routine but an act, which converts a private document to a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. 19

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 20 stresses the necessity of establishing the identity of an affiant before the notary public. Section 1, Rule II states:

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. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 2 (b), Rule IV further provides:

SECTION 2. Prohibitions. — x x x

(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. (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the settlement deed was notarized by Atty. Obra despite the lack of an ID of one of the parties to the deed. He merely relied on the assurance of the co-signatory, who was purportedly the "brother" of the unidentified party, to establish the identity of the latter. Undoubtedly, Atty. Obra was negligent in the discharge of his duties and functions as notary public. He disregarded the principle that a notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit thereby requiring the notaries public to observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the acts it embodies. 21

Furthermore, jurisprudence provides that a breach of Notarial Rules would also constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) since an erring lawyer who breached his duty as a notary public is also considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer. 22 Particularly, Atty. Obra violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which provides:

CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In Coquia v. Laforteza, 23 the Court revoked the notarial commission of therein respondent, Atty. Laforteza, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year for failing to ascertain the identities of the parties to the notarized document. Atty. Laforteza notarized a pre-signed document presented to him and merely relied upon the assurance of one of the parties to the document that her companions are the actual signatories to the said document.

Similarly, the Court, in Lopena v. Cabatos, 24 revoked Atty. Cabatos' notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year for notarizing a document without proper identification of the affiant. Atty. Cabatos merely relied on the guarantee of another person that the one appearing before him was the person named in the document.

Meanwhile, in Orola v. Baribar, 25 the Court suspended the erring lawyer from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his incumbent commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The erring lawyer therein notarized a document without the personal appearance of the affiants and merely relied on the assurances of his clients' leaders that the others who were unable to present competent evidence of identity were the actual signatories of the document.

In Ladrera v. Osorio, 26 the Court suspended therein respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months, revoked his notarial commission with prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years and warned him that similar acts will be dealt with severely. The erring lawyer in the said case notarized documents despite the absence of the parties and the lack of competent proofs of their identity.

In view of Atty. Obra being in his twilight years and the lack of bad faith on his part coupled with the fact that this is his first infraction, the Court deems it proper to impose the penalty of revocation of his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year; and suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Anent Ricafort, the Court agrees with the IBP that there was lack of sufficient proof to substantiate the allegations against him. Hence, the recommendation for the dismissal of the Complaint insofar as Ricafort is concerned is well-taken.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jesus A. Obra is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six(6) months. His notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is hereby DISQUALIFIED to be commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He is WARNED that a similar violation by him shall be dealt with more severely.

The Complaint against Francisco Ricafort is DISMISSED.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Obra's personal record. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.

2. Adm. Case No. 4349 (Resolution), 22 December 1997, 347 Phil. 687-696 (1997) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

3.Rollo, pp. 120-121.

4.Id. at 7-8.

5.Id. at 121.

6.Id. at 122.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 122-123.

9.Id. at 123.

10.Id. at 123-124.

11.Id. at p. 124.

12.Id. at 124-125.

13.Id. at 119-129.

14.Id. at 127-129.

15.Id. at 126-127.

16.Id. at 125-126.

17.Id. at 117-118.

18.Id. at 117.

19. See Coquia v. Laforteza [Formerly CBD Case No. 13-36960], A.C. No. 9364, 08 February 2017, 805 Phil. 400, 411-412 (2017) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division], citing Sps. Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015, 753 Phil. 421, 430 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

20. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 06 July 2004.

21. See Ladrera v. Osorio [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4553], A.C. No. 10315, 22 January 2020 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, First Division], citing Gonzales v. Padiernos, A.C. No. 6713, 08 December 2008, 593 Phil. 562, 568 [Per J. Brion, Second Division] (2008).

22. See Sanchez v. Intion, A.C. No. 12455, 05 November 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc], citing Triol v. Agcoili, Jr., A.C. No. 12011, 26 June 2018, 834 Phil. 154, 159 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

23. See Coquia v. Laforteza[Formerly CBD Case No. 13-36960], supra note 19.

24. See A.C. No. 3441, 11 August 2005, 504 Phil. 1-8 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

25. See A.C. No. 6927, 14 March 2018, 828 Phil. 1-10 [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].

26. See Ladreda v. Osorio [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4553], supra at note 21.