Case Digest (A.C. No. 3849)
Facts:
Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo v. Atty. Jose R. Restauro, Adm. Case No. 3849, June 25, 2003, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo and Marcelino G. Soriano were co-owners of a 561-square-meter parcel in Davao City covered by TCT No. T-39100. On June 8, 1992, complainant filed a petition for the disbarment or indefinite suspension of respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro, alleging malpractice, deceit and grave misconduct in relation to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 19, 1990 that respondent prepared and notarized. The SPA purportedly showed that Felicidad G. Soriano (complainant’s maiden name), her deceased husband Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as attorney-in-fact to sell the pro indiviso half share in the property, but complainant insisted none of them appeared before respondent to execute or acknowledge the document.
Complainant produced a death certificate showing Alberto Bernardo died on January 30, 1980, more than ten years before the SPA was notarized, and alleged impostors had appeared. She also alleged she retained counsel to recover her share and sought damages, attorney’s fees and costs in addition to disciplinary sanctions. Respondent answered that the persons identifying themselves as the parties appeared before him with identification papers and the original TCT, and that he would not have notarized the SPA absent personal appearance and acknowledgment; he denied participation in any fraud.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation on September 14, 1992. The Investigating Commissioner set a hearing on November 16, 1993, which complainant attended but respondent did not, having manifested a waiver of attendance. Complainant submitted documentary evidence and a memorandum; respondent filed comments objecting to admission of complainant’s formal offer of evidence and did not file a memorandum. The Commissioner found respondent was not shown to be a party to the fraudulent execution and that he notarized based on identification papers presented, but that a notary must exercise due diligence and, given the SPA authorized a sale of complainant’s share, respondent should have exerted utmost efforts to ascertain true identities. The Commissioner recommended reprimand and indefinite revocation of respondent’s commission as notary until he could show fitness to act again.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation by Resolution of August 3, 2002; the Supreme Court noted the IBP resolution on January 13, 2003. The Court reviewed the record and the authorities cited by t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s preparation and notarization of the Special Power of Attorney constitute conduct warranting disbarment or indefinite suspension?
- If misconduct was established, what disciplinary penalty was appropriate for respondent as a notary public?
- What are the duties and limits of a notary public in verifying the identity of persons executing documents, especially when the instrument ef...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)