Case Summary (A.C. No. 12084)
Allegations and Facts
Dandoy alleged that on October 17, 2006, the respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Dandoy's deceased father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate pertaining to his late grandmother’s property. Dandoy contended that Jacinto had died on July 13, 1999, and thus could not have appeared before the respondent to sign the documents. Consequently, Dandoy stated that the properties were mortgaged and subsequently foreclosed.
Respondent's Admissions and Defense
In his Sworn Statement dated May 22, 2011, Edayan acknowledged notarizing the documents but claimed to have verified the identities of the signatories through their residence certificates. He argued that while such certificates are not mentioned in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, they are still required for the execution of notarial acts according to other statutes.
IBP's Findings and Recommendations
In the Report and Recommendation dated October 22, 2015, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Edayan administratively liable for failing to adhere to the 2004 Notarial Rules. The commissioner recommended revocation of Edayan's notarial commission and disqualification from notarial service for two years. Edayan's failure to confirm the identity of the signatories was cited as a major lapse, particularly given that competent evidence of identity mandates government-issued identification and credible witness verification.
Court's Resolution on the Issue
The Court confirmed the IBP's findings and recommendations while modifying the penalties. It reiterated the importance of notarization as it transforms private documents into public documents. The Court emphasized that notaries must exercise utmost diligence in verifying identities in order to maintain public confidence in the notarial system.
Violation of Notarial Rules
The respondent's actions were deemed negligent as he did not request the identification documents required by the 2004 Notarial Rules. The Court highlighted that using community tax certificates as proof of identity no longer sufficed as competent evidence. Furthermore, both Felipe and Garzo, who witnessed the transactions, were considered privies to the documents, which invalidated their testimony according to th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12084)
Background of the Case
- The administrative case arose from a verified letter-complaint dated December 17, 2010, filed by Hernanie P. Dandoy against Atty. Roland G. Edayan for alleged violations of Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Dandoy's complaint centers on the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate, both executed on October 17, 2006.
Allegations in the Complaint
- Dandoy alleged that his father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, who executed the SPA, had passed away on July 13, 1999, rendering the notarization invalid.
- The documents notarized by Edayan allowed Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo to mortgage two parcels of land, leading to their foreclosure and significant loss for Dandoy and his siblings.
Respondent's Admissions and Defense
- Edayan admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed to have verified the identities of the signatories through their residence certificates.
- He contended that he believed the individuals claiming to be Jacinto and Felipe Dandoy were indeed who they said they were, based on confirmation from Felipe and the presence of witnesses.