Facts:

The complainants in this case are Avelino O. Angeles, Maria O. Angeles, Lauro O. Angeles, Rosalina O. Angeles, and Connie M. Angeles, collectively representing the interests of their deceased relative, Loreto Angeles. They filed a complaint against Atty. Amado O. IbaAez for disbarment, arguing that he notarized an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in Manila on February 18, 1979, without a valid notarial commission and without the presence of the parties involved. The complainants asserted they had never appeared before IbaAez nor executed this document. They provided several pieces of evidence, including tax declarations and certifications from governmental bodies indicating that IbaAez was not appointed as a notary public for that period in Manila or Cavite.

Respondent IbaAez countered by claiming he notarized the document as a notary public for the Province of Cavite, insisting that the misstatement of "Manila" as the place of notarization was a

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Complainants: Avelino O. Angeles, Maria O. Angeles, Lauro O. Angeles, Rosalina O. Angeles, and Connie M. Angeles, acting in representation of the deceased Loreto Angeles.
• Respondent: Atty. Amado O. IbaAez, a practicing lawyer, who also served as a notary public in certain instances.
• Cause: Complaint for disbarment filed on the ground of notarizing an “Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale” without a notarial commission and without the presence of the affiants.

Alleged Notarial Act and Surrounding Circumstances

• The disputed document was notarized on 18 February 1979 in the City of Manila, recorded in Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 157 (or p. 147 as later referenced) and Book No. II, Series of 1979.
• Complainants allege they neither executed the document nor appeared before the respondent for notarization.
• It is contended that Atty. IbaAez acted without a valid notarial commission at the time and improperly notarized the document in the absence of the required affiants.

Supporting Evidence Submitted by the Complainants

• Tax declarations in the names of Barselisa Angeles and Juan Angeles, detailing the property concerned.
• A series of certifications from the Office of the Clerk of Court and the National Archives indicating:
• A lack of notarial records for Atty. IbaAez as a notary public in Manila for the relevant periods (1976–1977 and 1978–1979).
• Absence of records pertaining to affidavits and partition documents acknowledged by him in 1977.
• Copies of documents relating to various transactions affecting the property, including:
• Two versions of a “Partihang Labas sa Hukuman at Ganap na Bilihan” dated 28 March 1978.
• A flow chart of the history of Tax Declaration No. 403.
• An application for a free patent and related land transaction documents.
• The “Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale” allegedly notarized by the respondent, with attached marginal notes by the complainants.
• A real estate mortgage executed by Flora Olano.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

• Atty. IbaAez admitted to notarizing the document but claimed:
• He notarized it in his capacity as Notary Public for the Province of Cavite—not Manila—asserting that the designation “Manila” was an error made by his legal secretary.
• The document was prepared and typewritten by complainant Rosalina Angeles for a purported consideration of Php20,000.00, supported by banking evidence.
• The respondent maintained that:
• His notarization was validated by the personal assurance of Rosalina Angeles regarding the genuineness of the signatures.
• The presence of residence certificates in the document further supported his reliance.
• Despite any defects in notarization, the underlying sale is valid as evidenced by the long possession of the property by Puerto Azul.
• The respondent further raised the issue of forum-shopping, alleging that this complaint is essentially a rehash of a previously dismissed administrative case (Administrative Case No. 3581) related to a different land transaction.

Background on Related Administrative Case

• Administrative Case No. 3581 involved allegations of “land-grabbing” concerning two parcels of land in Bgy. Zapang, Ternate, Cavite.
• That case, which involved the transfer and subsequent sale of the disputed property, was dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit.
• The complainants’ filing of the present complaint was argued to be an attempt to obtain a more favorable result after the dismissal of the earlier case.

IBP’s Report and Subsequent Proceedings

• In its Report and Recommendation dated 21 January 2008, IBP Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found that:
• Atty. IbaAez notarized the document in the absence of the required affiants.
• The notarization was performed without a valid notarial commission for the document’s indicated place (Manila).
• The report separated the current complaint from the earlier land-grabbing issue, emphasizing that the controversy here revolves solely around improper notarization.
• A series of resolutions and supplemental submissions by both the IBP Board of Governors and the respondent were made, documenting the administrative process.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Amado O. IbaAez committed acts of professional misconduct by notarizing an “Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale”:

• In the absence of the required physical presence of the affiants as mandated by law.
• Without holding a valid notarial commission for the place and period in which the document was notarized.

• Whether the notarization defects—specifically, the error in the place of execution and reliance on representations rather than direct verification—constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions against a lawyer.

• Whether the respondent’s argument regarding forum-shopping and the separation of issues from the previous disciplinary case is tenable in dismissing the current administrative action.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)