Title
Villarin vs. Sabate, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 3324
Decision Date
Feb 9, 2000
Atty. Sabate Jr. suspended for 1 year for notarial negligence, signing affidavits without affiants’ personal presence, violating due diligence as a notary public.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 3324)

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of the Case
    • Complainants:
      • Pastor Edwin Villarin
      • Paciano de Veyra, Sr.
      • Bartolome Evarolo, Sr.
    • Respondent: Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. – acting in his capacity as a lawyer and notary public.
    • Context: The complainants sought administrative sanctions against respondent Sabate, Jr. for allegedly failing to observe honesty and utmost care in the performance of his duties as a notary public.
  • Underlying Transaction and SEC Case
    • Relevant Filing:
      • Complainants, through their counsel Atty. Eduardo D. Estores, filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz et al. under SEC Case No. DV091 with the Region XI Davao Extension Office in Davao City.
      • During the SEC proceedings, the respondents filed their “Motion to Dismiss With Answer To Villarinas Et. Al., Complaint To The Securities and Exchange Commission.”
    • Notarial Act:
      • The motion was prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Sabate, Jr.
      • The Verification portion of the pleading contained several signatures, including:
        • The signature of Paterno Diaz, which complainants allege was not his but that of his wife, Lilian Diaz.
        • Signatures of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, for whom complainants asserted that Atty. Sabate, Jr. signed “By” on their behalf.
  • Alleged Irregularities in the Notarial Act
    • Complainants’ Assertions:
      • The signature of Paterno Diaz was allegedly not his own but that of Lilian Diaz.
      • For Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, the respondent’s use of the word “By” before the signatures was interpreted as an unauthorized representation.
      • Complainants argued that the act of signing on behalf of others under the guise of notarial certification undermined public confidence.
    • Respondent’s Defense and Explanation:
      • Respondent argued that:
        • Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan, and Alejandro Bofetiado had allegedly swore to the correctness of the allegations in their SEC motion through their authorized representatives.
        • He notarized the document on the basis that:
          • He was duly authorized by his clients to sign for them, as evidenced by written authority and the use of the word “By” before signatures.
          • The practice was necessitated by logistical reasons (i.e., the distance from his clients’ residences and the tight filing period).
      • Additionally, he contended that his actions—though challenged by the complainants—were performed in good faith as both counsel and an officer of the religious sect and corporation respondents known as “Pastors.”
  • Notarial Duty and Public Policy Considerations
    • Legal Framework:
      • The Notarial Law and Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 are cited, prescribing that:
        • An acknowledgment must be made by a notary public only after verifying the identity of the persons who executed the document.
        • The certificate of acknowledgment should be made under the notary public’s official seal.
      • A lawyer acting as notary public is expected to ensure that the signatories personally appear before him to authenticate and swear to the truth of the facts contained in the documents.
    • Conflict of Interest and Inconsistency:
      • Notarizing a document in which the notary public himself is a signatory creates an inherent conflict.
      • Such an act defeats the basic function of the acknowledgment—to minimize fraud and ensure the document's integrity through independent verification.
  • Outcome of the Administrative Proceedings
    • Investigating Commissioner’s Recommendation:
      • The designated Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended enforcement of administrative sanctions, specifically a suspension.
    • IBP’s Resolution:
      • The Board of Governors, by adopting the recommendation, first resolved to suspend the respondent’s Commission as Notary Public for six (6) months.
    • Final Judicial Resolution:
      • The court found that although the respondent acted in good faith in some respects, his failure to disclose proper representation and his notarization of a document in which he participated as a signatory constituted a lack of due diligence.
      • Consequently, Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. was suspended from his Commission as a Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

Issues:

  • Whether the respondent, by notarizing the Motion to Dismiss With Answer and signing on behalf of others, violated the statutory and ethical requirements prescribed for a notary public.
    • Did the act of notarizing a document in which he was not only acting as counsel but also as one of the signatories compromise the integrity of the notarial process?
    • Is the use of the word “By” preceding the signatures sufficient to satisfy the legal prerequisites for acknowledging the personal appearance of the signatories?
  • Whether the respondent’s defense—that he was acting under client authorization and under exigent circumstances—justifies the deviations from standard notarial practice.
    • Can authorized representatives duly substitute for the physical appearance of the principals when notarization is concerned?
    • Is good faith sufficient mitigating evidence in light of the explicit statutory requirements for personal appearance during notarization?
  • Whether the respondent’s conduct has wider implications for public confidence in the notarial system and the legal profession.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms