A.C. No. 12062 - Heir of Unite vs. Guzman

A Petition for Disbarment was filed on December 9, 2014 by Florentino S. Unite, the sole heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, against respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman.
The charges arise from allegations that respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, his lawyer's oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

On December 19, 2012, respondent notarized a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale and/or a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Jose Unite Torrices, who claimed to be the sole heir of Herminigildo.
The property involved was located in Ballesteros, Cagayan, covered by a title registered in Herminigildo’s name, which was later canceled and reissued in the name of Francisco U. Tamayo.
During notarization, Torrices presented only his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as evidence of identity, despite the requirements for competent evidence.

Complainant asserted that a CTC is no longer considered a competent evidence of identification because it lacks a photograph and signature, which are mandated by the Notarial Rules.
It was also contended that Torrices’s other documents failed to meet the evidentiary requirements to establish his identity as the sole heir.
Complainant further maintained that the subsequent filing of a civil case for annulment of the deed and the affected title confirmed his rightful ownership.
Accompanying evidence included copies of the deed, Certificate of Death of Herminigildo, Florentino’s birth certificate, the marriage contract of his parents, Tamayo’s Transfer Certificate of Title, and the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 33-471-2014.

In his Answer, respondent denied the charges by asserting that he complied with the Notarial Rules by verifying the identities through current government identification documents (which are required to have a photograph and signature) and by conducting interviews to assess the parties’ capacity to execute the deed.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC), in a Report and Recommendation dated April 21, 2015, found respondent administratively liable for failing to require the presentation of competent evidence of identity.
The IBP-IC’s recommendation was for a suspension from the practice of law for six months and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Although the IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings, they reduced the penalty to a reprimand on the basis that respondent personally knew the affiant; however, this was challenged by the complainant, who sought reconsideration—a motion that was subsequently denied in April 2017.

Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violating the Notarial Rules.

Whether the use of a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as lone identification satisfies the prescribed requirements for competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules.
Whether the exception for a signatory being “personally known” to the notary public was correctly applied, given that the deed did not expressly state that the signatory was personally known to respondent in the required manner.
Whether respondent’s failure to document the presentation of additional, current government identification documents constitutes a breach of his duty as a notary public.