A.C. No. 8249 - Sambile vs. Ignacio

On February 15, 2005, Marciano Sambile and Lerma Sambile (complainants) filed a verified complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Renato A. Ignacio (respondent) for notarizing a document without their personal appearance.
The complaint centered on the notarization of a Deed of Donation executed on February 15, 2002, which later raised legitimacy issues.

On February 16, 2005, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued an Order directing the respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint.
A copy of the Order was sent to the respondent's office address at EPZA, Rosario, Cavite.
On April 25, 2005, the office manager of Supnet, Emelo and Torres Law Offices returned the Order with a note that the respondent had left the firm after immigrating to the United States on December 26, 2004.
The IBP-CBD subsequently directed the complainants on May 31, 2005, to furnish the correct and current address of the respondent; failure to comply would result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Complainants then provided an address: Filomena Building, General Trias Drive, Rosario, Cavite.
Despite reiterating the Order to Answer on August 24, 2005, the Commission noted on June 8, 2006, that the new address matched the previous law firm’s address—where it was known the respondent was no longer connected—resulting in the case being archived pending proper service.

The case was resubmitted for decision on September 14, 2008, with subsequent Report and Recommendation on September 22, 2008, advising dismissal without prejudice until the respondent’s whereabouts could be determined.
On November 20, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation, dismissing the complaint without prejudice for refiling.
Through 2009 and subsequent years up to 2015, the court noted the lack of motion for reconsideration by either party and received updates regarding the respondent’s address from both the IBP and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office (MCLEO).
On April 17, 2017, the Court’s Third Division referred the case back to the IBP for further investigation after the respondent’s representative duly received a resent copy of a Court Resolution.

A mandatory conference was scheduled on October 13, 2017; however, the respondent failed to appear while Lerma appeared with counsel.
The conference was rescheduled for November 22, 2017, but the respondent again failed to appear, leading to termination of the conference and subsequent directive for submission of verified position papers.
Complainants detailed that on February 15, 2002, while occupied hosting a birthday party, they were induced by Remedios Sambile (Marciano’s adoptive mother) to sign a document, later provided as a purported Deed of Donation.
The Deed of Donation was executed with signatures from Remedios (donor), Herminio Sambile (donor’s spouse and adoptive father, whose signature was questionable as he had died in 1987), and Marciano (donee) along with the marital consent of his spouse, Lerma.
The document was notarized by the respondent on the same day.
Complainants received notice that a complaint for annulment of the Deed of Donation had been filed on grounds of falsification, particularly because one of the required signatories (Herminio) could not have signed in 2002.
A Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Cavite City confirmed that no copy of the Deed of Donation was on file for 2002, undermining the authenticity of the notarization process.

In its April 19, 2018 Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD held that the respondent’s act of notarizing the Deed of Donation without requiring the complainants’ personal appearance violated applicable notarial standards.
The act was deemed to have violated both the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), constituting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
The IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for one year and a prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, barring him from future similar offenses.
On June 28, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting these findings, with the additional imposition of a ₱5,000 fine and the immediate revocation of his notarial commission (if still extant).
The Resolution and records were subsequently transmitted to the Court for final action pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

The Court agreed with the IBP’s findings that the respondent notarized the Deed of Donation without the required personal appearance.
It was underscored that notarization is a substantive act, not routine, requiring strict compliance with formalities to safeguard public trust.
The respondent’s repeated failure to appear and file his position paper, coupled with documentary evidence evidencing the dubious notarization, sealed his violation of both notarial standards and the professional ethics mandated for lawyers.

Whether the IBP-CBD had jurisdiction over the respondent given the issues with his address and service of its Orders.
The impact of the respondent’s change of address and failure to update his location appropriately on the proceedings.

Whether the respondent’s notarization of the Deed of Donation without ensuring the complainants’ personal appearance constitutes a violation of existing notarial rules and legal requirements.
The legitimacy of notarizing a document when one of the signatories (Herminio Sambile) was factually incapable of having executed the document in view of his prior demise.

Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Public Act No. 2103

Whether the respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsely attesting that the parties appeared before him.
Whether the failure to require personal appearance amounts to a violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103.
The implications of such violations on the public trust and the integrity of notarized documents.

Whether the disciplinary measures imposed (suspension from practice, revocation of notarial commission, prohibition from future commissions, and the imposition of a fine) are appropriate given the gravity of the violations.
The potential for more severe penalties in case of future repetition of similar acts.