SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12091. April 10, 2019.]
PLACIDA VALENZUELA, petitioner, vs.ATTY. LETICIA S. MARIANO-DE GUIA, * respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12091 — PLACIDA VALENZUELA versus ATTY. LETICIA S. MARIANO-DE GUIA
Placida Valenzuela (Valenzuela) filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit, 1 dated August 23, 2011, for disbarment against respondent Atty. Leticia S. Marian-De Guia (Atty. Mariano-De Guia) for allegedly falsifying a "Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential House" (Deed) dated March 31, 2005, wherein the vendors and vendee used fictitious Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). 2 Valenzuela alleged that: she filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and an independent civil action against Spouses Ranie and Nenita Buloron (vendors) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City; in the course of the proceedings in the civil action, when she filed a motion for writ of execution, she discovered the existence of the abovementioned Deed between the vendors and Margarita De la Pena-Endo (vendee), which was notarized by Atty. Mariano-De Guia; hence, Valenzuela's attempts to enforce a favorable judgment by levying on vendors' subject property were unsuccessful; Valenzuela claimed that Atty. Mariano-De Guia violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 3 and that she discovered several irregularities regarding t he subject Deed, i.e., (a) the vendors and vendee's CTCs were fictitious based on the certifications issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of Parañaque and of Pasay; (b) the Deed was allegedly entered under Doc. No. 154, Page No. 32, Book No. 1, Series of 2005, but upon verification with the Clerk of Court of RTC-Parañaque, the said entry actually belongs to a "Waiver and Quitclaim" and not the said Deed; and (c) the Deed bears no signature of the vendee. 4
In an Order 5 dated August 26, 2011, Atty. Mariano-De Guia was required to submit her Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. In an Answer 6 dated June 4, 2012, Atty. Mariano-De Guia alleged that: when the subject Deed was presented to her on March 31, 2005, she notarized it since all parties were present and it was regular on its face; at that time, she had no personal knowledge of any controversy involving the subject property; the vendors' sale of the subject property was lawful since there was no money judgment yet; the vendee's signature appears on the left side margin of every page of the Deed; she verified the identities of the parties to the transaction; the genuineness of the CTCs is beyond her notarial duty; and regarding the falsification charge, the criminal complaint against her was dismissed by the Office of the Prosecutor of Parañaque which found probable cause only against the vendors. 7 Thereafter, Valenzuela filed her Reply 8 dated July 4, 2012.
Thereafter, the CBD issued a Notice, 9 setting the case for mandatory conference/hearing on December 7, 2012. During the said hearing, Atty. Mariano-De Guia did not appear, while Valenzuela, through counsel, was given the opportunity to state her case against Atty. Mariano-De Guia. 10 After the hearing, the parties were ordered to file their respective position papers after which the case would be deemed submitted for report and recommendation, unless a clarificatory hearing was required. 11 Valenzuela submitted her Position Paper 12 dated January 4, 2013, while Atty. Mariano-De Guia submitted her Position Paper 13 dated February 26, 2013. Relative to the erroneous notarial register entry, Atty. Mariano-De Guia alleged therein that the subject Deed was recorded on p. 33 (instead of p. 32 as indicated on the subject Deed) as Doc. No. 159 (instead of 154), which error, she said is excusable considering the sheer volume of notarized documents.
In a Report and Recommendation 14 dated August 23, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Mariano-De Guia be reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if she was commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) months. 15 The Investigating Commissioner's findings are as follows: there is no evidence on record to prove that Atty. Mariano-De Guia has falsified the subject Deed; however, in allowing the CTCs, Atty. Mariano-De Guia failed to require the affiants to produce a competent evidence of identity pursuant to Sec. 12 (a), 16 Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by a Court Resolution dated February 19, 2008; although a notary public may not require the affiants to present a competent evidence of identity if he/she knows them personally, the said fact must be stated in the jurat; in this case, Atty. Mariano-De Guia failed to state the same, in violation of Sec. 1 (b) (8), 17 Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; moreover, Atty. Marian-De Guia admitted that she made a wrong entry in the notarial register regarding the subject Deed, in violation of Sec. 1 (b) (2), 18 Rule XI of the same Rules. 19
In a Resolution No. XXI-2015-297 20 dated April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the above Report and Recommendation by revoking her notarial commission and increasing the penalty from reprimand to suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and disqualifying her from being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years, instead of only three (3) months. 21 Aggrieved, Atty. Mariano-De Guia filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 22 while Valenzuela filed her Comment/Opposition. 23 In a Resolution No. XXII-2017-1302 24 dated April 20, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors denied the said motion.
In view of the facts of the case and considering that this is the first offense of the respondent, the Court affirms with modification the Resolution No. XXI-2015-297 dated April 19, 2015 of the IBP Board of Governors, by adopting the penalty recommended by the IBP CBD Investigating Commissioner, that of reprimand and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public or from performing any notarial act if she is presently commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) months. In determining the penalty to be imposed, the Court considers the facts and factors which may serve as mitigating circumstances, such as the respondent's length of service, the respondent's acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, respondent's advanced age, humanitarian and equitable considerations, among others. 25 Respondent is hereby reminded to be more circumspect in performing her duties as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, the Court adopts and approves with modification the Resolution No. XXI-2015-297 dated April 19, 2015 of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 11-3147. Atty. Leticia S. Mariano-De Guia is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and is hereby REPRIMANDED, and her notarial commission, if still existing, is immediately REVOKED and she is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) months, to commence immediately upon receipt of this resolution.
Atty. Mariano-De Guia is DIRECTED to report the date of her receipt of this resolution to enable the Court to determine when her disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public shall take effect.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the IBP, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this Resolution be appended to Atty. Leticia S. Mariano-De Guia's personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Respondent's correct name, Atty. Leticia S. Mariano-De Guia may be found in her Answer dated June 4, 2012, rollo, pp. 42-47.
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2.Id. at 135.
3. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5.Id. at 24.
6.Id. at 42-47.
7.Id. at 43-46.
8.Id. at 53-59.
9.Id. at 64.
10.Id. at 65.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 66-78. Titled "COMPLAINANT'S POSITION PAPER."
13.Id. at 89-98. Titled "POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT."
14.Id. at 135-141. Penned by Commissioner Leo B. Malagar.
15.Id. at 141.
16. 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, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; x x x [Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Additional Guidelines for the Implementation of the MOA Between OCA and OSG on Notarial Registers), AM. No. 02-8-13-SC].
17. SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — x x x
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:
xxx xxx xxx
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence.
18. SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts.
19. Rollo, pp. 138-141.
20. Id. at 133-134.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 114-119.
23. Id. at 122-128.
24. Id. at 131-132.
25. Office of the Court Administrator v. Egipto, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-1938, January 30, 2018, accessed at <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63838> citing Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, 608 Phil. 334 (2009).