Title
Aquino vs. Manese
Case
A.C. No. 4958
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2003
Atty. Oscar Manese notarized a deed with a deceased signatory, violating Notarial Law and professional ethics, leading to suspension and disqualification.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 4958)

Facts:

  1. Complainant's Allegations:

    • Fidel D. Aquino (complainant) accused Atty. Oscar Manese (respondent) of falsifying a public document.
    • The document in question was a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994, which included the signature of Lilia D. Cardona, who had already died on November 25, 1990.
    • Complainant claimed he had been tilling the land since 1960 as a tenant of the late Luis M. Cardona.
    • In 1975, the spouses Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully took possession of the land, leading to a legal battle that reached the Court of Appeals, which recognized complainant as the lawful tenant.
    • The Deed of Absolute Sale was allegedly executed by the heirs of Luis Cardona, including the deceased Lilia Cardona, in favor of Ma. Cita C. Perez, daughter of the spouses Perez, and was notarized by respondent.
  2. Supporting Documents:

    • Investigation Report of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
    • Memorandum of Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo.
    • NBI Questioned Documents Report No. 517-696, which concluded that the signature of Lilia Cardona on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not genuine.
    • Death Certificate of Lilia Cardona.
    • Court of Appeals Decision dated August 30, 1988, recognizing complainant as the lawful tenant.
  3. Respondent's Defense:

    • Respondent argued that complainant lacked the legal standing to file the complaint.
    • He claimed that as a notary public, he was not expected to personally know every person who appeared before him for notarization.
    • He asserted that he was merely performing his duty as a notary public when he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale.
  4. Procedural History:

    • The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
    • Despite notice, respondent failed to appear at the hearings, citing ill health and unavailability of counsel.
    • The IBP Board of Governors found respondent gravely remiss in his duties as a notary public and recommended the suspension of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Legal Standing of Complainant:

    • The Court held that complainant, as a tenant of the land subject to the sale, had a legitimate interest in the case. His rights as a tenant were directly affected by the transfer of ownership.
    • Moreover, under Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, disbarment or disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by any person, regardless of their direct interest in the matter.
  2. Violation of Notarial Law:

    • The Court emphasized the importance of notarization as a public act that converts private documents into public documents, making them admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.
    • Respondent failed to verify the identity and presence of the signatories, particularly Lilia Cardona, who was already deceased at the time of the notarization.
    • This reckless act undermined public confidence in notarial documents and violated the basic duties of a notary public.
  3. Breach of Professional Responsibility:

    • Respondent's actions breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes.
    • His conduct also violated Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
  4. Public Interest in Notarization:

    • The Court reiterated that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act that carries significant legal consequences.
    • Notaries public must exercise utmost care in verifying the identity and presence of signatories to ensure the integrity of notarial documents.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Oscar Manese guilty of gross negligence and misconduct in the performance of his duties as a notary public. His actions not only violated the Notarial Law but also breached the ethical standards required of lawyers under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposed severe penalties, including the revocation of his notarial commission and a two-year suspension from the practice of law, to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the public's trust in notarial acts.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.