Case Digest (A.C. No. 11870)
Facts:
The case in question, Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by sole heir Miguel B. Torrices v. Atty. Haxley M. Galano, was filed as a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Haxley M. Galano for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. On July 23, 2012, Atty. Galano, serving as a commissioned Notary Public in Cagayan, notarized a *Deed of Absolute Sale* wherein Dominga Unite Torrices, purportedly the vendor, sold a parcel of land to Felipe U. Tamayo for PHP 200,000. The land was situated in Barangay Fugu, Ballesteros, Cagayan and covered an area of 7,303 square meters. The Heirs of Torrices contested the authenticity of this deed, asserting that Dominga had died on June 6, 1974, and her husband Miguel was also deceased in the early 1970s; thus, they could not have participated in the execution of the deed. This prompted the heirs to file a complaint against Atty. Galano, accusing him of collusion with the vendeesCase Digest (A.C. No. 11870)
Facts:
- Notarial Act and Transaction
- On July 23, 2012, Atty. Haxley M. Galano, in his capacity as a commissioned Notary Public in the Province of Cagayan, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale.
- The Deed purportedly evidenced a transaction between:
- Vendor: Dominga Unite Torrices, married to Miguel G. Torrices.
- Vendee: Felipe U. Tamayo, married to Divina Tamayo.
- The subject property is a parcel of land under Original Certificate of Title No. P-4993(S) and Free Patent No. 367865, located at Barangay Fugu, Ballesteros, Cagayan, covering 7,303 square meters, sold for P200,000.00.
- The transaction was recorded in Atty. Galano’s Notarial Register as Doc. No. 1130, Page No. 226, Book No. XXIII, Series of 2012.
- Allegations of Irregularities and Question of Authenticity
- The Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by sole heir Miguel B. Torrices, questioned the authenticity of the Deed.
- They pointed out that both purported signatories, Dominga and Miguel Torrices, had died well before the notarization:
- Dominga died on June 6, 1974.
- Miguel is said to have passed away in the early 1970s.
- The Heirs alleged that Atty. Galano conspired with the vendees by falsely presenting the appearance of the deceased parties during the notarization process.
- Procedural Background and IBP Actions
- A Petition for Disbarment was filed against Atty. Galano for:
- Violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Breach of the Lawyer’s Oath.
- Non-compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- Atty. Galano failed to submit an answer to the petition.
- On June 29, 2015, IBP Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles issued a Report and Recommendation stating:
- Atty. Galano notarized the deed without requiring the physical presence of the signatories.
- He falsified the record by asserting that Dominga and Miguel appeared personally before him.
- He thereby violated not only notarial rules but also committed an act which could be construed as a violation of the Revised Penal Code.
- Based on the report, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s recommendation in a Resolution dated June 30, 2015, suspending Atty. Galano from the practice of law for three years.
- Governing Notarial Rules and Requirement of Presence
- Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the physical appearance of the signatories for an acknowledgment.
- Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the same rules explicitly prohibits notarization if:
- The signatory is not in the notary’s presence.
- The signatory is not personally known to or properly identified by the notary.
- The fundamental requirement is imposed to preserve the public integrity and trust in notarized documents.
Issues:
- Administrative Liability of Atty. Galano
- Whether or not Atty. Galano is administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the actual signatories.
- Whether Atty. Galano's conduct constitutes a violation of:
- The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The Lawyer’s Oath.
- Falsification and Misrepresentation Concerns
- Whether Atty. Galano committed falsehood by stating that the signatories personally appeared before him, despite evidence to the contrary.
- Whether such acts undermine the sanctity of notarized instruments that are invested with public trust.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)