Facts:

The case involves complainants Fortunato C. Dionisio, Jr. and Franklin C. Dionisio against respondents Atty. Miguel G. Padernal and Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. The complaint was filed on July 10, 2013, and was docketed as CBD Case No. 13-3900 before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complainants, who are partners in a business named FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company (now FCDionisio General Merchandising Company), along with their sister Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon and their deceased mother, Adelaida C. Dionisio, discovered that a parcel of land registered under the partnership was mortgaged without their consent. On February 12, 2010, Atty. Padernal notarized a Real Estate Mortgage involving the property as security for a loan taken by Sunyang Mining Corporation from Union Bank of the Philippines, while Atty. Agcaoili, Jr. notarized a Partner's Certificate authorizing the mortgage. The complainants asserted t...

Facts:

1. Partnership and Property Ownership:

   • Complainants Fortunato C. Dionisio, Jr. and Franklin C. Dionisio, along with their sister Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon and their late mother Adelaida C. Dionisio, founded a partnership named FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company (later renamed FCDionisio General Merchandising Company).
   • A parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (168302) S-3664 was registered under the partnership's name.

2. Liquidation of Partnership:

   • Upon the partnership's dissolution, complainants entrusted the liquidation and winding-up of its affairs to Atty. Rowena S. Dionisio, Franklin's daughter-in-law.

3. Notarization of Documents:

   • On 12 February 2010, Atty. Miguel G. Padernal notarized a Real Estate Mortgage executed by FCDionisio General Merchandising Company and Union Bank of the Philippines, using the subject property as security for a P20,000,000.00 loan taken by Sunyang Mining Corporation.
   • On the same date, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. notarized a Partner's Certificate authorizing the mortgage.

4. Discovery of Foreclosure:

   • Complainants later discovered that the property had been foreclosed and sold at public auction, with Union Bank as the winning bidder.

5. Allegations of Fraud:

   • Complainants claimed they and Felicitas did not personally appear before the respondents on 12 February 2010.
   • Felicitas was out of the country on that date, as evidenced by her travel records from the Bureau of Immigration.
   • Complainants argued that the use of community tax certificates as identification was insufficient under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

6. Respondents' Defense:

   • Atty. Padernal admitted notarizing the Real Estate Mortgage but claimed that complainants and Felicitas were introduced to him by Union Bank employees and presented identification cards.
   • Atty. Agcaoili, Jr. failed to file a verified Answer or attend the mandatory conference.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Notarization as a Public Function:

   • Notarization is not a mere mechanical act but a public function that converts private documents into public ones, making them admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity.
   • Notaries public must strictly comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly in verifying the identities of signatories.

2. Violation of Notarial Rules:

   • Respondents failed to confirm the identities of the signatories through competent evidence of identity, as required by Section 2(b)(1) and (2), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules.
   • Reliance on community tax certificates, which lack photographs and signatures, is insufficient and constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules.

3. Violation of the CPR:

   • Respondents' failure to perform their notarial duties with due diligence violated Canon 1 (upholding the law) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting dishonest or deceitful conduct) of the CPR.
   • Their actions also violated Canon 10 (candor and fairness) and Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehoods).

4. Aggravating Circumstances:

   • Atty. Agcaoili, Jr.'s prior administrative liability for similar offenses and his failure to comply with IBP directives were treated as aggravating circumstances, warranting stricter penalties.

5. Penalties:

   • The penalties imposed were consistent with jurisprudence, aiming to uphold the integrity of the notarial system and deter future violations.