Facts:

The case at hand, entitled Romeo A. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica L. Llera-Agno, and adjudicated by the First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, reached a decision on January 8, 2018, under A.C. No. 10689 (formerly CBD Case No. 11-3171). This administrative complaint stemmed from allegations filed by complainant Romeo A. Almario against respondent lawyer Atty. Dominica L. Llera-Agno, for her actions in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the affiants, specifically Francisca A. Mallari. On July 5, 2006, a Complaint for Judicial Partition was filed against Angelita Barrameda and others in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, asserting Almario's claim as the sole registered owner of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. In this context, the respondent, serving as counsel for the defendants, notarized an SPA that purportedly authorized Ma. Lourdes Almario P. Pedia to act on behalf of the heirs of the late Victoria Almari

...

Facts:

Administrative Case Background

• A complaint was filed by Romeo A. Almario before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty. Dominica L. Agno.
• The complaint pertained to Agno’s notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of its affiants, Francisca A. Mallari, thereby allegedly rendering the document falsified.

The Underlying Civil Case and the SPA

• On July 5, 2006, a Complaint for Judicial Partition with Delivery of Certificate of Title was instituted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila by Almario against Angelita A. Barrameda and several co-defendants.
• It was alleged that Almario was the sole surviving registered owner of a parcel of land, while the defendants were co-owners by virtue of intestate succession.
• In connection with this civil suit, respondent lawyer notarized a SPA which empowered Ma. Lourdes Almario P. Pedia to act as the representative in administering the property.
• The SPA was executed on July 26, 2006, in Muntinlupa City and included the signatures of the heirs of the late Victoria A. Almario, along with an acknowledgment notarized by Atty. Agno.

Allegations Raised by Complainant

• Almario contended that the SPA was falsified because Francisca A. Mallari, one of the affiants, could not have executed the document since she was in Japan at the time of notarization, as verified by the Bureau of Immigration.
• The SPA was reportedly used in the civil case to perpetrate fraud, leading to a criminal case for violation of Article 172 (Use of Falsified Document) against Ma. Lourdes Almario Pedia.
• It was further alleged that respondent lawyer notarized the SPA despite Mallari’s absence from the notary’s presence.
• The acceptance of a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as proof of identity was also challenged on the ground that it was no longer considered competent evidence under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Consequently, Almario argued that Agno’s actions constituted a violation of the professional standards enshrined in Canon 1 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent Lawyer’s Defense and Mitigating Factors

• Atty. Agno maintained that the SPA was sent by Pedia to Mallari in Japan on July 12, 2006, and was later brought back to the Philippines by Mallari’s son on July 25, 2006.
• She explained that the notarization on July 26, 2006 was done out of expediency due to time constraints in filing the civil case answer, and she asserted that Mallari later acknowledged the SPA at the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo on August 28, 2006, thereby imbuing it with retroactive validity.
• Agno contended that no fraud or deception was committed, particularly in light of the subsequent judicial compromise agreement in the civil case.
• She defended the acceptance of the CTC as proof of identification when no other evidence was available.
• Additional mitigating circumstances cited included that this was her first offense since being commissioned as a notary public in 1973, and her advanced age (71 years old) warranted a less severe penalty.

IBP and Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

• The Investigating Commissioner found respondent lawyer liable for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically for notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of Mallari.
• A six-month suspension as notary public was recommended.
• The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation through a resolution on April 16, 2013, and denied her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on May 3, 2014.

Issue:

• Whether Atty. Dominica L. Agno’s notarization of the SPA without the required personal appearance of the signatory (Francisca A. Mallari) constituted a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Whether the acceptance of a Community Tax Certificate as proof of identity, despite it being considered outdated under the 2004 rules, was appropriate.
• What constitutes an appropriate penalty for the infraction, particularly in light of the mitigating circumstances such as the absence of bad faith, the resolution of the related civil case via compromise, her long record of service, and her advanced age.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)