Title
Supreme Court
Almario vs. Llera-Agno
Case
A.C. No. 10689
Decision Date
Jan 8, 2018
A lawyer was suspended for two months for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without the affiant's personal presence, violating notarial rules, despite mitigating circumstances.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10689)

Factual Background

On July 5, 2006, Almario initiated a civil case, Civil Case No. 06115416, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, claiming sole ownership of a parcel of land located at 973 Del Pan Street, Tondo, Manila. The named defendants were Angelita A. Barrameda and others who allegedly co-owned the property by intestate succession. The SPA in question was executed by Ronald A. Gatdula and Francisca A. Mallari, appointing Ma. Lourdes Almario P. Pedia as the attorney-in-fact for property administration.

Allegations Against the Respondent

Almario contended that the SPA was falsified as Mallari was in Japan during its execution, as certified by the Bureau of Immigration. The SPA was purportedly used in the civil case to deceive Almario, leading to a criminal filing for use of a falsified document against the attorney-in-fact. Additionally, Almario supplied evidence that Atty. Agno notarized the SPA without ensuring the physical presence of Mallari. He argued that the respondent's acceptance of Community Tax Certificates (CTC) was improper under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, constituting a violation of Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent’s Defense

In her response, Atty. Agno denied wrongdoing, asserting that the SPA was sent to Mallari in Japan for acknowledgment and returned shortly prior to notarization. She claimed that Mallari's acknowledgment before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo was done to address the urgency of responding to the civil case. Atty. Agno emphasized that she acted in good faith, and argued that neither fraud nor deception occurred since the civil case ultimately ended in a Compromise Agreement. The respondent also defended her actions by stating that CTCs still qualified as valid identification under certain circumstances.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Atty. Agno was liable for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the personal appearance of signatories. The recommendation was a six-month suspension from notarial duties due to the clear breach of notarial protocol.

Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors

On April 16, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors upheld the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner. Atty. Agno subsequently filed a verified Motion for Reconsideration, which was rejected in a resolution dated May 3, 2014.

Respondent’s Petition for Review

In her petition, Atty. Agno acknowledged the infraction but requested a reduction of the penalty, highlighting her long tenure as a notary without prior incidents, the isolated nature of the alleged misconduct, the good faith involved, and her advanced age.

Legal Analysis

The court noted the strict requirements under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which necessitate a notary public to physically verify the presence of signatories for notarization. The requirement is intended to uphold the integrity of legal documents and counteract potential misconduct. It wa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.