A.C. No. 13588 - Navarrete vs. Brillantes, Jr.

Complainants Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10.

On October 30, 2004, respondent drafted, prepared, and notarized a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (DREM) in favor of Willy Sebastian involving property co-owned by the complainants and their elder brother Dinno.
Complainants claimed the DREM was executed without their knowledge and that respondent falsely represented them as being of legal age despite Miguel being 15 and Miguelito, Jr. being 13 years old at that time.
Further, respondent allegedly allowed strangers to sign on their behalf on the DREM.
They asserted that respondent's notarization demonstrated complicity in the fraudulent act by Sebastian, his client, and that respondent defended Sebastian before courts and legal offices.

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1077136 showing property ownership details.
Birth certificates evidencing complainants’ minority at the time of the DREM execution.
The DREM and its Amendment.
Titles issued to Sebastian.
Complainants’ identification cards.
Joint Reply-Affidavit in a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification filed against respondent.
Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) and IDs purportedly shown by impostors pretending to be complainants.
Respondent's comment/opposition to their petition for review with the Department of Justice.
Amended and Second Amended complaints filed in the civil case against Sebastian.

Denied violations, asserting proper ascertainment of identities through CTCs and IDs that were photocopied and matched the information in the property title indicating complainants were of legal age.
Claimed the signatories were accompanied by complainants’ father, Miguelito, Sr., and brother Dinno, who introduced and acknowledged them as the complainants.
Highlighted the prior execution of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate in July 2003 involving complainants representing themselves as of legal age, with uncontested signatures similar to those on the DREM.
Clarified that Atty. Rolando B. Bernardo notarized the Amended DREM, but complaints were not filed against him.
Noted that in civil litigation, complainants never questioned the DREM’s validity on the grounds of minority.
Argued the administrative complaint was filed almost twelve years after notarization and aimed at harassment and coercion for settling the pending civil case.
Claimed this was his first administrative complaint in over 25 years of practice.
Pointed out that the 2004 Notarial Rules had just been enacted at the time, lacked a comprehensive enumeration of competent evidence of identity, justifying his reliance on CTCs and IDs presented by the signatories.
Submitted documentary proofs including corrected birthdates showing complainants as adults, affidavits from Sebastian and his broker supporting the preparation and execution of the DREM, and IDs presented by the persons appearing as complainants.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended a six-month suspension and revocation of respondent's notarial commission, finding that respondent notarized the DREM either without the appearance of the affiants or with forged signatures.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IC’s findings but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension, immediate revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from notarization for two years.
In a later extended resolution, IBP emphasized that complainants were minors at the time, and the CTCs presented were inadequate as competent evidence of identity per the 2004 Notarial Rules.

The Court acknowledged notarization as a public trust requiring strict adherence to the 2004 Notarial Rules.
Highlighted that notaries must ensure the actual presence and identity of signatories with competent evidence, which includes an official identification document bearing photograph and signature.
Found that community tax certificates are no longer valid evidence of identity under the Rules.
Determined that complainants were minors and could not have personally appeared to execute the DREM.
Concluded respondent’s reliance on CTCs and private IDs failed to meet the requirements of competent evidence of identity.
Noted the credible witness affidavits did not fulfill the Rule’s conditions: the witnesses were either privy to the document or not personally known to respondent, and did not present valid ID to respondent.
However, given respondent’s reliance on the information contained in the property title indicating complainants were of legal age, and the honest mistakes apparent from roles played by family members, the Court did not find intentional deceit or dishonesty.
Recognized this was respondent’s first offense in 25 years and that the 2004 Rules were new at the time.

Whether respondent Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr. violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage without properly ascertaining the true identities of the signatories purported to be complainants who were minors at the time.
Whether the penalties recommended by the IBP for the respondent’s acts are proper and commensurate.