Case Summary (A.C. No. 7781)
Allegations Against the Respondent
Complainants alleged that Atty. Dimaano notarized the document without their presence, thus making several untruthful representations in the acknowledgment section of the notarized document. They contended that the respondent's actions enabled their sister, Navarro, to unlawfully assume full ownership of their deceased parents' property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, facilitating a subsequent sale to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Respondent’s Explanation and Defense
In response to the allegations, Atty. Dimaano acknowledged his involvement in preparing and notarizing the disputed document. He claimed to have acted in good faith based on the representations made by Zenaida Navarro, whom he had known for three decades, contending that he believed in the validity of the signatures and community tax certificates presented to him. The respondent further contended that he should not be held liable for any perceived damages, given that the document had been revoked and canceled.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
The Investigating Commissioner from the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) established key facts, including the wrongful notarization by Atty. Dimaano without the necessary personal appearance of the complainants. The Commissioner noted that Atty. Dimaano relied solely on Navarro's representations regarding the legitimacy of the signatures and did not verify their authenticity or compliance with the provisions of the Notarial Law.
Legal Framework and Violations
Atty. Dimaano's actions were deemed to constitute a clear violation of the Notarial Law. Notaries public are mandated to personally ascertain the identity and acknowledgment of the individuals signing the documents before them. Specifically, notaries must ensure that acknowledgments are consistent with the requirements set forth by law, including verification of identity and the presentation of proper identification. The failure to comply with these requirements undermines the integrity of notarization, and Atty. Dimaano’s neglect in this regard resulted in the potential for fraud.
Commission's Recommendation
The Commission recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law, along with the revocation of Atty. Dimaano's notarial commission and a two-year disqualification from being appointed as a notary public. This recommendation was also supported by the precedent established in Gonzales v. Ramos, underscoring the necessity of adhering to the Notarial Law to maintain public trust in notarized documents.
Final Decision and Implications
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendations, affirming the findings regarding Atty. Dimaano's breach of the Notarial Law. The decision emphasized the essential role notaries play in preserving the authenticity o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7781)
Introduction to the Case
- The case involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. filed by complainants Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi.
- The complaint centers around a notarized document, titled "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights," which the complainants allege was executed fraudulently.
Allegations of the Complainants
- The complainants claim their signatures on the document were forged.
- They assert that they did not appear and acknowledge the document before Atty. Dimaano on July 16, 2004, as required for notarization.
- The community tax certificates cited in the document were not theirs, further indicating fraudulent activity.
- Atty. Dimaano is accused of making false statements in the acknowledgment section of the notarized document.
Respondent's Admission and Explanation
- Atty. Dimaano acknowledged his involvement in preparing the document and admitted to notarizing it.
- He claimed to have acted in good faith, relying on the representations made by Zenaida Navarro, the complainants' sister, regarding the authenticity of the signatures and tax certificates.
- Atty. Dimaano argued that his long-standing relationship with Navarro led him to believe her assertions were truthful.
- He disclaimed any liability for damages, noting that the fraudulent document had been revoked an