THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12834. October 14, 2020.]
DELILAH MIYAKE SENO, complainant,vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. GONZALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 14, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12834 (Delilah Miyake Seno, Complainant, v. Atty. Oscar R. Gonzales, Respondent). — This administrative case stems from a complaint 1 filed by Delilah Miyake Seno (Seno) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Oscar R. Gonzales (Atty. Gonzales), which accused him of notarizing an affidavit despite full knowledge that the contents thereof included false assertions.
Antecedents
In her complaint, Seno narrated that her father, Daniel M. Miyake, died on 18 December 2000 and left certain properties in Davao. A large portion of the properties contained coconut and banana trees. To settle her father's estate, Seno filed a Petition for Letters Administration and for Judicial Partition before the Regional Trial Court of Davao Del Sur (RTC). In the estate case, Seno's mother, Milagos Erum-Miyake, filed an opposition through her counsel, Atty. Gonzales. 2
On 4 June 2013, a certain Dorivic Erum Maruya, acting on behalf of complainant's mother, executed an Affidavit of No Encumbrance. The purpose of the affidavit was to support an application to cut coconut trees in the properties subject of the estate proceedings filed before the Philippine Coconut Authority. Atty. Gonzales notarized the affidavit which contained the following statement:
That said parcel of land as well as its improvements has no existing encumbrances, nor subject of a real estate mortgage, no lis pendens, and no third-party claimant shall be prejudiced by the issuance of a Permit to Cut; (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx 3
After the Permit to Cut was granted, all coconut trees in a nine-hectare portion of the said properties were uprooted using heavy machinery on 17 June 2013. 4 Eventually, Seno filed a complaint against Atty. Gonzales for malpractice considering that he notarized the subject affidavit despite being well-aware that there were other claimants in the estate proceedings. 5
In his defense, Atty. Gonzales admitted performing the jurat for the affidavit but insisted it was his valid act as a duly commissioned notary public. 6 Atty. Gonzales further argued that a notary public is not required to ascertain the truthfulness of the affiant's statements before performing the notarial act. 7
Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
IBP Investigating Commissioner Patrick M. Velez found that Atty. Gonzales violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 8 As the lawyer handling the opposition in the estate case involving the properties subject of the Affidavit of No Encumbrance, Atty. Gonzales knowingly notarized the same despite containing a patently false statement. Hence, the investigating commissioner recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year, as well as disqualification from being appointed as notary public for the same period. 9
In its 28 September 2017 Resolution, 10 the Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, to wit:
CBD Case No. 13-3956
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to impose upon Respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, Immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission, if subsisting, and Disqualification from being appointed as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.11
Issue
Whether Atty. Gonzales violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the Affidavit of No Encumbrance.
Ruling of the Court
We adopt the findings of the IBP. Atty. Gonzales' actions are sufficient to warrant his suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties. 12
When the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents diminished. 13 As such, a lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing false statements or material falsehoods may be held administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 14
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code provides:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In the case at bar, Atty. Gonzales admitted to notarizing the document and acting as counsel for the oppositor in the estate case. 15 From these admissions, the IBP correctly found Atty. Gonzales to have knowingly performed the notarial act on a document containing patently false assertions. It was untrue that no third-party claimant would be prejudiced by the Permit to Cut because there were claimants in the estate case. In fact, Atty. Gonzales had personal knowledge of this falsehood precisely because he was the lawyer handling the opposition. 16
However, the Court finds it proper to modify the duration of the IBP's recommended suspension. It has been held that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (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. 17 In Heirs of Villanueva v. Beradio, 18 which involved a similar infraction, this Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of one (1) year.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Oscar R. Gonzales is SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent's commission as notary public is REVOKED, if still existing. Further, respondent is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a period of one (1) year.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon respondent's receipt of a copy of this Resolution. Respondent shall inform this Court and the Office of the Bar Confidant in writing of the date he received a copy of this Resolution. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to his personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Resolution to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2.Id. at 113-114.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 114.
6.Id. at 39.
7.Id. at 97.
8.Id. at 120-121.
9.Id. at 120 and 122.
10.Id. at 111.
11.Id.
12.Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr., A.C. No. 10540, 28 November 2019.
13.Heirs of Spouses Villanueva v. Beradio, 541 Phil. 17, 22-23 (2007).
14.See Crisostomo v. Nazareno, 736 Phil. 1, 12 (2014).
15.Rollo, p. 116.
16.Id. at 120.
17.Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe v. Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, 20 March 2019.
18. 541 Phil. 17-23 (2007).