Case Digest (A.C. No. 12084) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This administrative case involves Hernanie P. Dandoy (complainant) against Atty. Roland G. Edayan (respondent) concerning allegations of professional misconduct. The complaint was filed on December 17, 2010, with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Dandoy asserted that on October 17, 2006, the respondent notarized two documents: a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Dandoy's father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate pertaining to Dandoy’s late grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang. Dandoy claimed that Jacinto had passed away on July 13, 1999, making it impossible for him to have been present for the notarization. Consequently, Dandoy argued that these documents were improperly notarized, resulting in his father's inability to secure two parcels of land in San Juan, Siquijor, which were subsequently mortgaged and foreclosed, causing significant financial hardship for Dandoy and his family. In support of his allegations, Dandoy atta Case Digest (A.C. No. 12084) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Complaint
- The administrative case originated from a verified letter-complaint dated December 17, 2010 filed by Hernanie P. Dandoy before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- Dandoy accused respondent Atty. Roland G. Edayan of violating Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Notarization of the Documents
- On October 17, 2006, respondent notarized two documents:
- A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Jacinto S. Dandoy, father of the complainant, in favor of Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo, authorizing Garzo to offer two parcels of land in San Juan, Siquijor as collateral.
- A Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate pertaining to the late grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, in which Jacinto was also a party.
- Critical factual discrepancy:
- Dandoy asserted that Jacinto could not have appeared for the notarization as he had died on July 13, 1999.
- The documents, by being notarized under this false pretense, enabled Garzo to mortgage the properties to secure a loan, which eventually led to foreclosure and loss to Dandoy and his siblings.
- Evidence and Identification Issues
- In support of his claim, Dandoy attached:
- Certified true copies of the SPA and the Deed.
- A death certificate of Jacinto confirming his death in 1999.
- A copy of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage indicating the involvement of Garzo and Felipe Dandoy.
- Respondent’s defense centered on his assertion that he verified the identities of the signatories through residence certificates.
- He maintained that two persons claiming to be Jacinto and Felipe appeared in his office and that the witnesses confirmed their identities.
- He argued that despite residence certificates not being expressly listed in Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, they were still required by other legal provisions such as the Notarial Law and the Local Government Code.
- Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC)
- The IBP-IC determined that respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto using the competent evidence of identity as required by the 2004 Notarial Rules.
- Specific observations by the IBP-IC included:
- The community tax certificate (cedula) presented did not qualify as competent evidence because it lacked a photograph and signature.
- The supposed affirmation by credible witnesses was invalidated since the witnesses and parties (Felipe and Garzo) were privy to the transaction.
- An observed discrepancy in the signatures on the SPA and the Deed should have prompted further identification verification by the respondent.
- As a result, the IBP-IC recommended:
- Revocation of respondent’s notarial commission, if existing.
- Disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
- Subsequent IBP Actions
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-IC report and recommendation on February 25, 2016.
- Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP on April 20, 2017.
Issues:
- Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules.
- Whether respondent’s reliance on residence certificates satisfied the required competent evidence of identity as stipulated under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
- Whether the failure to verify the identity of the purported signatory (Jacinto) constituted a neglect of duty as a notary public and, by extension, as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)