G.R. No. 162318 - Navales vs. Abaya

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Gina E. Endaya against Atty. Edgardo O. Palay.
The allegations include violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

On July 27, 2004, Atty. Palay notarized the Deed of Sale involving eight parcels of land, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 8940, 8941, 8942, 8943, 8944, 10774, 17938, and 19319.
The deed was purportedly executed with the thumbmark of Engr. Atilano AB. Villaos, who is related to the complainant.

Endaya asserted that Villaos was confined at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City from May 27 to August 17, 2004, making his physical appearance in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, impossible.
An affidavit by Dr. Bella L. Fernandez indicated that during that period Villaos was not of sound mind, thus incapable of understanding the consequences of executing the Deed of Sale.
Villaos eventually passed away on August 28, 2004.

Atty. Palay claimed that he was approached by Villaos’ driver in May 2004 to render notarial services and that he met Villaos in a car, at Villaos’ own request due to his inability to sign.
This version was refuted by the affidavit of Dr. Carlos Tan, which established that Villaos was under intravenous fluid and required an oxygen mask, casting doubt on his capacity to perform the act.
Villaos’ driver, Arnel Villafuerte, denied under oath having approached Atty. Palay regarding the notarization.

IBP Investigating Commissioner Jordan M. Pizarras determined that Atty. Palay failed to faithfully discharge his notarial duties, prompting a recommendation for disciplinary measures.
The initial recommendation was for a three-month suspension from the practice of law and a permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but increased the suspension period to one (1) year.

Atty. Palay filed a first motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP.
He then filed a second motion for reconsideration (treated as a petition for review), in which he admitted to violating the canons and ethics related solely to his notarial duties, while denying any wrongdoing as counsel to his clients.
He argued that his suspension from the practice of law should be lifted on the basis that his erroneous actions were confined to his role as a notary public.

Atty. Paul Resurreccion, counsel for the complainant, was ordered to file a comment on Atty. Palay’s second motion for reconsideration.
His failure to comply with this court directive, despite an earlier fine of ₱1,000.00, resulted in his being found in indirect contempt.
Consequently, an additional fine of ₱5,000.00 was imposed on him.

Whether Atty. Palay violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the Deed of Sale without the physical presence or proper identification of Villaos.

Did his conduct—admitting that the notarization was done without Villaos personally appearing—amount to a breach of notarial duties?
Does his contradictory testimony regarding the approach by Villaos’ driver mitigate or aggravate his violation?

Whether the practice of notarization is inherently a part of the practice of law, hence justifying the imposition of sanctions on Atty. Palay for not only the notarial misconduct but also for reflecting on his overall fitness as an attorney.

Whether the imposition of an additional fine for indirect contempt on Atty. Paul Resurreccion is supported by his failure to comply with the court’s direct order.