A.C. No. 500 - Ramirez vs. Ner

This is a proceeding for disbarment initiated against respondent, Atty. Jaime S. Ner, a member of the Philippine Bar and a notary public.
Respondent is charged with violating his oath as a lawyer and notary public by notarizing a deed of sale with an erroneous acknowledgment clause.

On April 5, 1960, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr. (respondent’s officemate and friend) presented a duly prepared and typed deed of sale concerning the sale of his motor vehicle for notarization by respondent.
The acknowledgment clause of the deed purported that both the vendor (Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr.) and the vendee personally appeared before the notary, a fact that was not substantiated by the actual presence of the vendee.
Respondent notarized the deed based on Abaya’s firm promise that he would not part with any copies and would bring the vendee to execute and acknowledge the instrument together with another witness on the following day.

Later on the same day, Abaya informed respondent that his car – the subject of the sale – had been stolen by Edwardo I. Reyes and his companions, along with all copies of the notarized deed, the certificate of registration, and the certificate of tax payment.
In response, respondent annotated the corresponding entry in his notarial register with the remark “stolen and cancelled.”

Despite the noted irregularity, the supposed vendee, relying on the appearance of a valid notarized document, procured a new certificate of registration from the Cavite City branch of the Motor Vehicles Office (now the Land Transportation Commission).
Edwardo I. Reyes later sold the motor vehicle to petitioner Tahimik Ramirez, who claimed to have purchased the car in good faith, relying principally on the apparent regularity and authenticity of the notarized deed.
A criminal information for qualified theft (Crim. Case No. 5146-P) was subsequently filed, resulting in a conviction for Reyes and an acquittal for Ramirez on grounds of reasonable doubt.

During the trial of the criminal case, respondent admitted that he had notarized the deed of sale despite the absence of the vendee, acknowledging that the document was incomplete.
His defense rested on the claim that his act of affixing his signature and notarial seal, although done on an incomplete instrument, did not complete the notarization process; thus, he argued that he did not violate his oath as a lawyer or commit any disbarment-worthy transgression.

Whether respondent’s act of notarizing an incomplete deed of sale—with an acknowledgment clause that falsely attested to the personal appearance and signature of the vendee—constituted a violation of his duty as a notary public.

Did the notarization on the basis of a promise (rather than actual appearance) breach the standard procedures required of notarial acts?
To what extent did respondent’s conduct affect the legal reliability and public faith in notarized documents?

Whether the irregular notarization, which facilitated the subsequent illegal registration and conveyance of the motor vehicle, amounted to culpable malpractice or immoral conduct sufficient to justify disciplinary action, up to and including disbarment.

Is the error committed by respondent a product of carelessness, or does it rise to the level of a disgraceful or unethical act warranting severe sanctions?
Can respondent’s claim that the act remained incomplete mitigate his responsibility for the notarization error?

Whether, given the circumstances and respondent’s admission of the procedural irregularity, a sanction less severe than disbarment (such as a reprimand) is appropriate.