Case Summary (A.C. No. 9209)
Factual Background
On November 25, 2007, the complainant purchased a property in San Rafael, Bulacan for P800,000. Without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) intending to transfer the title in her name. The CLOA was void ab initio as the land was not agricultural and there was a ten-year prohibition on its transfer. In 2009, the complainant initiated a petition for cancellation of the CLOA before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), represented by Atty. Ramos. After withdrawing the petition, she discovered that the deed of sale utilized by the seller had been fraudulently altered, misrepresenting the sale price and the scope of the transaction, including forged signatures.
Allegations Against Respondent
Atty. Ramos denied representing the defendants before the DAR, admitting only to notarizing their Answer. He refuted involvement in the alleged falsification of the deed, claiming his signature had also been forged. Despite this, he acknowledged notarizing a genuine deed of sale dated May 12, 2009, for a different amount and claimed that the significant difference in price indicated possible foul play by another party.
Investigation and Findings
The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) concluded that Atty. Ramos violated notarial laws, recommending a one-year suspension and a two-year disqualification from acting as a notary public. The CBD found Ramos's defense to be unconvincing due to a lack of corroborative evidence.
Disciplinary Resolution
On June 6, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors modified the CBD's recommendation, suspending Atty. Ramos for six months instead of one year and revoking his notarial commission. The IBP echoed the findings regarding the serious violation of the rules governing notarial practice, emphasizing that notarization must involve the personal appearance of the signatories.
Legal Principles Involved
The Court highlighted Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, mandating personal acknowledgment before a notary. Furthermore, Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits notarization in the absence of the parties involved. The act of notarization holds significant public interest, transforming a private document into an official one, requiring adherence to strict formalities.
Respondent’s Defense
Atty. Ramos contended that he did not notarize the questioned deed and that the signature was forged. However, evidence indicated that one signatory, Douglas Ferguson, was not present in the Philippines during the notarization. This discrepancy undermined his defense. Furthermore
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9209)
Case Overview
- The case involves a complaint filed by Nenita De Guzman Ferguson against Atty. Salvador P. Ramos, seeking his disbarment.
- Allegations against Atty. Ramos include falsification, violation of notarial law, and engaging in private practice while employed in government service.
- The incident revolves around the improper notarization of a Deed of Sale related to a property purchased by the complainant.
Antecedents
- Property Purchase: On November 25, 2007, Ferguson purchased a house and lot in San Rafael, Bulacan, for P800,000.00.
- CLOA Acquisition: The seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) without the complainant's knowledge, which was later found to be void due to the land not being agricultural and a prohibition on its transfer.
- Legal Actions: Ferguson filed a petition to cancel the CLOA with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) but later withdrew it and pursued the case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Discovery of Forgery: Upon receipt of the Answer from the defendants, it was discovered that the Deed of Sale dated April 24, 2009, was fraudulently altered and did not include the house, with a falsified sale price of P188,340.00.
Allegations Against Atty. Ramos
- Notarization Issues: Atty. Ramos allegedly notarized the Deed of Sale without the presence of the parties involved, which constitutes a violation of notarial rules.
- Forgery Claims: The complainant alleges that the si