A.C. No. 9209 - Ferguson vs. Ramos

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9209)

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that she purchased a house and lot in San Rafael, Bulacan on November 25, 2007 for P800,000 and that the vendor subsequently obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to transfer title in her name. She alleged that the CLOA was void ab initio because the land was not agricultural and there was a ten-year prohibition against transfer. In 2009 she filed a petition for cancellation of the CLOA before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and later withdrew that petition to file an action in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos City. Upon receiving the Answer in the RTC case, the complainant observed that it was substantially similar to the Answer previously filed in the DAR and attributed its preparation to Atty. Salvador P. Ramos. She discovered that a Deed of Sale dated April 24, 2009, presented in the Registry of Deeds, had been altered to show only the sale of the land for P188,340 instead of the house and lot for P800,000; she alleged that both her signature and that of her husband, Douglas Ferguson, were forged and that Atty. Ramos notarized the deed without their personal appearance.

Proceedings before the IBP and CBD

The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The Commission on Bar Discipline conducted a mandatory conference, received position papers, and issued a Report and Recommendation dated November 21, 2014, finding Atty. Ramos guilty of violating the law on notarial practice and recommending suspension, revocation of his notarial commission if held, and disqualification from acting as a notary public for two years following suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the CBD recommendation in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-458 dated June 6, 2015, revoking any existing notarial commission immediately, disqualifying him from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months.

The Parties' Contentions

Atty. Salvador P. Ramos denied representing the defendants in the DAR case but admitted notarizing the defendants' Answer. He denied notarizing the April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale and claimed his notarial signature on that instrument was forged. He, however, admitted notarizing a different Deed of Sale dated May 12, 2009 between vendor Alfredo Inosanto and the complainant and her spouse for P300,000. He suggested that whoever benefited from the alleged forgery had motive to present a lower purchase price at the Registry of Deeds to reduce capital gains tax.

Evidentiary Findings Relevant to Notarization

The record showed that Douglas Ferguson could not have personally appeared before Atty. Ramos on May 12, 2009 because the complainant presented a copy of Douglas’s passport indicating he entered the Philippines only on May 26, 2001 and left on June 12, 2001. Both the April 24, 2009 and May 12, 2009 deeds bore the same document number, page number and book number in Atty. Ramos’ notarial registry, specifically document number 354, page 71, Book VII, series of 2009, raising serious questions as to how a purported earlier forged instrument matched the notarial registry entries.

Legal Issues Presented

The primary issues were whether Atty. Ramos violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a deed in the absence of the parties and whether his conduct constituted a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, which proscribe unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct by a lawyer; a secondary issue was whether his alleged private practice while employed in government service warranted administrative action by the Civil Service Commission.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied Public Act No. 2103 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including Section 2(b), Rule IV, which prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization or not personally known or otherwise identified by competent evidence of identity. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a routine act but one imbued with public interest because a notary's certificate gives a document the force of evidence. Relying on precedents such as Bautista v. Bernabe, Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzalez, Gonzales v. Ramos, and Ocampo-Ingcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., the Court emphasized the notary’s duty to verify the personal appearance and identity of signatories and to keep accurate notarial entries. The Court found that Atty. Ramos failed to observe these mandates and that his denial, unsupported by corroborative evidence, did not exonerate him.

The Court's Disposition

The Court found Atty. Salvador P. Ramos GUILTY of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It suspended him from the practice of law for six months. The Court revoked his notarial commission effective immediately and permanently barred him from being commissioned as a notary public, accompanied by a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court differed from the IBP only insofar as the IBP had disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two years; the Court imposed a permanent bar.

Ancillary Directives and Referrals

The Court referred the allegation that Atty. Ramos en

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9209)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nenita De Guzman Ferguson, Complainant, filed a Complaint-Affidavit seeking the disbarment of Atty. Salvador P. Ramos, Respondent.
Atty. Salvador P. Ramos was identified in the record as the Chief Legal Officer of the DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan.
The Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and report pursuant to the established administrative procedure.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP conducted a mandatory conference, received position papers, and submitted a Report and Recommendation.
The IBP-Board of Governors adopted and modified the CBD recommendation in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-458 dated June 6, 2015, and the case was subsequently resolved by the Court.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that she purchased a house and lot in San Rafael, Bulacan, for the sum of P800,000.00 on November 25, 2007.
Complainant alleged that the vendor obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to transfer title and that the CLOA was void ab initio because the land was not agricultural and was subject to a ten-year prohibition on transfer.
Complainant alleged that she filed a petition for cancellation of the CLOA before DAR in 2009 and thereafter filed an action in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos City.
Complainant alleged that the defendants’ Answer in the RTC was strikingly similar to the Answer filed before DAR and that both Answers were prepared by Atty. Salvador P. Ramos.
Complainant alleged that an April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale was fraudulently altered to omit the house and to indicate a purchase price of P188,340.00, that her signature and that of her husband Douglas Ferguson were forged, and that Atty. Ramos notarized the deed without the parties’ presence.

Admissions and Denials

Atty. Salvador P. Ramos denied representing the defendants before DAR but admitted notarizing the defendants’ Answer.
Atty. Salvador P. Ramos denied participation in the alleged falsification and asserted that his notarial signature on the April 24, 2009 deed was forged.
Atty. Salvador P. Ramos admitted notarizing a separate deed of sale dated May 12, 2009 between vendor Alfredo Inosanto and complainant and her spouse for the amount of P300,000.00.
Atty. Salvador P. Ramos suggested that whoever benefited from the altered deed could be the perpetrator of the falsification because the forged deed showed a lower purchase price to evade a higher capital gains tax.

Issues Presented

Whether Atty. Salvador P. Ramos committed falsification or other misconduct by notarizing a deed in the absence of the parties.
Whether Atty. Salvador P. Ramos violated the law on notarial practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether allegations that Atty. Salvador P. Ramos engaged in private practice while employed in government service warranted disciplinary action by this Court.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The Court invoked Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, which prescribes the acknowledgement procedure before a notary public.
The Court relied on Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice (2004), which prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act unless the signatory personally appeared and was known or identified by competent evidence.
The Court applied Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and to refrain from unlawful, dis