Case Summary (G.R. No. 175057)
Factual Background
Complainant instituted a Complaint for Judicial Partition with Delivery of Certificate of Title in the RTC of Manila alleging sole registered ownership of a parcel covered by TCT No. 244909 and asserting co-ownership by defendants by intestate succession. As counsel for defendants, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed purportedly by heirs of the late Victoria Almario, including Ronald A. Gatdula and Francisca A. Mallari, with the acknowledgement page signed by Atty. Dominica L. Agno as notary public in Muntinlupa. The acknowledgment recited personal appearance on July 26, 2006 and identified the affiants by CTC numbers. The SPA was later used in the civil case and related criminal proceedings were filed against the attorney-in-fact named in the SPA.
Complainant’s Contentions
Complainant contended: (1) the SPA was falsified because Mallari could not have executed it as she was in Japan at the time (as certified by the Bureau of Immigration); (2) the SPA was used to perpetrate fraud in the civil case and to support criminal charges against the attorney-in-fact; (3) respondent notarized the SPA although Mallari did not personally appear before her; (4) respondent accepted a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as identification despite the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice limiting CTCs as competent evidence of identity; and (5) respondent thereby violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
Respondent admitted notarizing the SPA but defended on several grounds: (1) the SPA was sent to Mallari in Japan on July 12, 2006 and returned via Mallari’s son on July 25, 2006; (2) the notarization on July 26, 2006 was done for expediency because defendants were pressed for time in filing an Answer, with the understanding that Mallari would later acknowledge the SPA before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo (on August 28, 2006), thereby giving the document retroactive effect; (3) Mallari did subsequently acknowledge the SPA with red ribbon before the Tokyo Consulate; (4) no fraud occurred because the civil case ended in a Compromise Agreement approved by the RTC; (5) CTCs remain acceptable where no other identification is available; and (6) complainant himself allegedly misrepresented Mallari’s residency in his verified complaint.
Investigative and IBP Findings
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recommended a six-month suspension of her notarial commission, concluding respondent notarized the SPA despite Mallari’s absence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the IBP was denied, prompting the petition for review before the High Court. The central issue before the Court became the appropriate penalty for the proven infraction.
Legal Standard on Notarial Acts and Personal Appearance
The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of personal appearance under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Section 1, Rule II defines “acknowledgment” to require that an individual appear in person before the notary, be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed; Section 2(b), Rule IV prohibits performing a notarial act where the signatory is not personally in the notary’s presence or not identified by competent evidence of identity. The purpose of these requirements is to enable verification of the genuineness of the signature and the voluntary execution of the document, preserving public confidence in notarial acts. The Court reiterated precedents recognizing notarization as a public-interest act that must be performed with utmost care (citing Ferguson v. Atty. Ramos and other decisions cited in the record).
Court’s Factual and Legal Analysis
Applying the rules to the record, the Court found that respondent notarized the SPA notwithstanding the absence of Mallari at the time and place of notarization; Mallari’s physical absence was supported by the Bureau of Immigration certification. Given the clear rule that personal appearance is required, respondent’s act constituted an infraction of the notarial rules and of her professional duties as a lawyer and notary. The Court observed that notaries function as sentinels against illicit deeds and that failure to observe the notarial requirements undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial acts.
Mitigating Considerations
The Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175057)
Procedural Posture and Case Identifiers
- Reported at 823 Phil. 1, First Division; A.C. No. 10689 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3171); Decision dated January 08, 2018.
- Administrative complaint filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Romeo A. Almario (complainant) seeking disbarment of Atty. Dominica L. Agno (respondent lawyer) for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one affiant.
- Investigating Commissioner prepared a Report and Recommendation; IBP Board of Governors adopted the finding and recommended penalty; respondent filed a verified Motion for Reconsideration which was denied; matter elevated via Petition for Review to the Supreme Court.
- Sole issue presented to the Court: the appropriate penalty for respondent lawyer for the infraction imputed against her.
Parties
- Complainant: Romeo A. Almario — instituted civil action and filed the administrative complaint before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
- Respondent: Atty. Dominica L. Agno — commissioned as a notary public since 1973; charged with notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of one affiant; petitioner for review sought reduction of recommended penalty.
- Other persons relevant to facts: Ma. Lourdes Almario P. Pedia (attorney-in-fact named in SPA), Ronald A. Gatdula (affiant), Francisca A. Mallari (affiant; also known as Francisca Almario Mallari Usui), Roman Mallari-Vestido (Mallari’s son), Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. (RTC judge who approved the Compromise Agreement).
Factual Background
- On July 5, 2006, complainant filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition with Delivery of Certificate of Title, docketed as Civil Case No. 06115416, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against Angelita A. Barrameda and others.
- Complainant alleged he was the sole surviving registered owner of a parcel at No. 973 Del Pan Street, San Antonio, Tondo, Manila, covered by TCT No. 244909; defendants were alleged co-owners by intestate succession.
- Respondent, as counsel for defendants, notarized and acknowledged a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 26, 2006, executed by heirs of the late Victoria Almario, naming Ma. Lourdes Almario P. Pedia as attorney-in-fact to administer the described property.
- Complainant asserted that one affiant, Francisca A. Mallari, could not possibly have executed the SPA because she was in Japan when the SPA was executed, as certified by the Bureau of Immigration (BI).
- The SPA was later used in the civil case and allegedly resulted in fraud and deception against complainant, leading to Criminal Case No. 452612-CR for violation of Article 172, Revised Penal Code, against Pedia.
Text and Details of the Special Power of Attorney (as reflected in the record)
- SPA captioned “SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY” executed “on the 26 [th] day of July 2006 at Muntinlupa City.”
- Grantors identified as the “HEIRS OF THE LATE VICTORIA ALMARIO,” specifically named: RONALD A. GATDULA and FRANCISCA A. MALLARI, both of legal age, Filipino, of the same address (973 Del Pan St., Tondo, Manila).
- Attorney-in-fact named: MA. LOURDES ALMARIO P. PEDIA.
- Scope: to act as representative and agent in administering property at District of Tondo, City of Manila, consisting of 78.65 square meters, covered by TCT No. T-244909; the instrument grants full power and authority to the attorney-in-fact.
- Execution: signatures of RONALD A. GATDULA and FRANCISCA A. MALLARI; instrument consists of three (3) pages including the acknowledgment page.
- Acknowledgment block: dated 26th day of July 2006 before a notary public for the City of Muntinlupa; affiants listed as personally appearing: Ronald A. Gatdula with CTC No. 16785315 issued at Manila on 1-19-06; Francisca Mallari with CTC No. 16785314 issued at Manila on 1-19-06; they were stated to be “known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Special Power of Attorney.”
- Notarial data: (Signed) DOMINICA L. AGNO, Notary Public; “Notary Public Until 31 Dec 2006”; PTR No. 0007769 Muntinlupa City 06 January 2006; IBP Life Roll 00577; Doc. No. 193; Page No. 55; Book No. 11; Series of 2006.
Complainant’s Allegations and Contentions
- The SPA was falsified because Mallari could not possibly have executed it as she was in Japan when the SPA was executed, per BI certification.
- The SPA was used in the civil case to perpetrate fraud and deception against complainant, resulting in a criminal case against Pedia for use of falsified document (Article 172, RPC).
- Respondent notarized the SPA although Mallari did not personally appear before her, in violation of notarial rules.
- In the process of notarizing the SPA, respondent accepted a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as proof of identity, which complainant contended is no longer competent evidence of identity pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- Therefore, respondent violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:
- CANON 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes; Rules 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 referenced.
- CANON 10: A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court; Rule 10.01 referenced.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
- Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint and offered multiple factual and legal defenses:
- On