A.M. No. RTJ-98-1400 - Carlos Dionisio vs. Hon. Zosimo Escano

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-98-1400)

Administrative Origins and Related Criminal Proceedings

The CHR, upon receipt of the complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo, referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate action. Parallel to the administrative complaint, the spouses Follosco filed a disbarment complaint docketed as Administrative Case No. 4375 against the same respondent, anchored on the same factual allegations. The disbarment complaint was raffled to Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr., who received the parties’ position papers and other pleadings before issuing his Report and Recommendation.

Substantively, complainants alleged that the signatures appearing on the notarized instruments were forged. They therefore pursued criminal complaints for falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, Atty. Mateo, and the instrumental witnesses. The criminal complaints were docketed as I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Rizal. One of these, involving the document entitled Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan, was dismissed by Prosecutor Marianito Santos. The other, I.S. No. 94-2064, was also dismissed as against respondent initially, although multiple counts were filed in court against Dr. Tongohan and at least one witness, while one count was filed against another witness.

Complainants were dissatisfied with the resolution in I.S. No. 94-2064 and sought review. The Department of Justice, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, reversed the resolution and directed that the questioned documents be referred to the NBI or PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and thereafter re-investigation and resolution anew based on the evidence submitted by the parties.

The Notarized Instruments and the NBI Findings

The IBP’s factual findings centered on several instruments executed in connection with the mortgage transaction between complainants and Dr. Tongohan. These documents were all notarized by Atty. Mateo in his capacity as notary public for the Province of Rizal. The instruments identified in the record were: (1) Sinumpaang Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (2) Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan; (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5) Promissory Note (Sinumpaang Pangako). The gravamen of the complaint was that complainants’ signatures on the notarized documents were forged.

After examination of the questioned document titled Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan, the NBI issued Questioned Documents Report No. 661-900, concluding that the questioned signatures and the standard sample signatures were not written by the same person. The findings further indicated that the forged documents enabled the issuance of new tax declarations in the name of Dr. Tongohan—Tax Declaration Nos. 00-TN-001-3661 and 00-TN-001-3147—effectively cancelling complainant Vicente Follosco’s earlier tax declarations, Tax Declaration Nos. 00-001-1158 and 001-3217.

Proceedings Before the IBP and the Report and Recommendation

Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. found that Atty. Mateo, having been a notary public during the relevant period, failed to discharge the duties imposed on him by law with the level of care required of notaries public. The commissioner characterized the omission as negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, with a warning that any repetition of the same or similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated August 30, 2003, approved the Report and Recommendation but modified the sanction. Instead of a three-month suspension from practice of law, it resolved that respondent’s notarial commission be suspended for one year, and that respondent be reprimanded with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Court’s Evaluation of the Legal Duty of a Notary Public

In reviewing the case, the Court adopted the IBP’s central factual conclusion that respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duties. The Court anchored its analysis on Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, emphasizing the requirement that the acknowledgment be made before a notary public or the authorized officer in the place where the act is done, and that the notary must certify that the person acknowledging is known to him and is the same person who executed and acknowledged the instrument as the person’s free act and deed. The Court stressed that the law requires that the person acknowledging must appear before the notary public or the authorized officer.

The Court noted that respondent did not deny notarizing the questioned documents. Respondent’s defense was that the documents had already been prepared and executed at the time they were submitted to him for notarization, and that because he was familiar with the complainants, he “unsuspectingly” affixed his signatures. Respondent also claimed that he had no intention of causing damage to complainants. The Court rejected this position. It held that respondent’s claimed good faith could not relieve him from liability for reckless failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law, especially the duty to require the personal appearance of the affiants and to ensure that the signatures were indeed the affiants’ own.

The Court underscored that notarization is not an empty or routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest. By notarization, a private instrument is converted into a public document, and the notarial document is entitled, upon its face, to weight and reliability. Because courts, administrative agencies, and the public rely on the acknowledgment executed by a notary, notaries public must observe the requirements of the law with great care. Accordingly, the Court reiterated the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories are the very persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what the document states.

Jurisprudential Support and the Failure to Require Personal Appearance

The Court invoked and applied jurisprudence explaining the constitutional and statutory significance of the notary’s role. It cited Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, emphasizing that the act of notarization converts a private document into a public document, admissible without further proof of authenticity, and that the purpose of the personal appearance requirement is to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the instrument is the acknowledging party’s free act and deed. The Court characterized the function of a notary as one impressed with public interest, accuracy, and fidelity, and noted that public confidence in notarized documents would be undermined if notaries routinely dispense with these essential safeguards.

In addition, the Court recognized that it had previously resolved numerous cases involving unauthentic notarized deeds and cautioned against the careless practice of lawyers who notarize documents without requiring the physical presence of the affiants. It stated that this practice erodes public faith in public documents. It then reaffirmed that it devolved upon respondent to act with due care and diligence before affixing his seal and signature on the challenged documents.

Professional Discipline: Liability as Notary Public and as Lawyer

The Court held that respondent’s failure had consequences beyond the immediate damage to complainants’ rights over the property subject of the instruments. It also undermined the integrity of notarization and degraded the public function of a notary public. Thus, the Court ruled that respondent was liable for negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

The Court reasoned that because respondent was a lawyer commissioned as notary public, his responsibilities were graver. It reiterated that a lawyer-notary is mandated to subscribe to the duties of his office, duties dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It further stressed that faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an acknowledgment or jurat are sacrosanct. In supporting the disciplinary character of the sanction, the Court referred to Flores vs. Chua, where it held

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-98-1400)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Vicente Follosco and Hermilina Follosco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 1994.
The CHR referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for appropriate action in August 1994.
The spouses also filed a disbarment complaint docketed as Administrative Case No. 4375 against Atty. Rafael Mateo based on the same acts.
The administrative case was raffled to Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. at the IBP.
After the parties submitted position papers and pleadings, Commissioner Magpayo, Jr., issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 24, 2003.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated August 30, 2003, approved the report with modification.
The case proceeded to the Court for final resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

Atty. Rafael Mateo served as a notary public during the years 1992 and 1993, covering the period material to the complaint.
The complainants were owners of a house and lot in Tanay, Rizal, which had been mortgaged to Dr. Epitacio R. Tongohan for a loan of P50,000.00.
The mortgage transaction was implemented through several related documents, all notarized by the respondent: (1) Sinumpaang Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (2) Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5) Promissory Note (Sinumpaang Pangako).
The complainants claimed that the signatures appearing on these notarized documents were forged.
The complainants filed criminal complaints for falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, respondent Mateo, and the instrumental witnesses.
The criminal complaints were docketed as I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 of the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Rizal.
I.S. No. 94-269, involving Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan, was dismissed by Pros. Marianito Santos.
I.S. No. 94-2064 was dismissed as against respondent in the initial resolution, but related counts of falsification were filed in court against Tongohan and Trinidad Iposadas, and another count against Veronica Regondola.

Prosecutorial and Forensic Developments

The complainants sought review of the prosecutor’s disposition of I.S. No. 94-2064.
The Department of Justice, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, reversed the resolution in I.S. No. 94-2064.
The Department of Justice ordered that the questioned documents be referred to the NBI or PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and that a re-investigation be conducted based on the parties’ evidence.
After examination of Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan, the NBI issued Questioned Documents Report No. 661-900.
The NBI concluded that the questioned signatures were not written by the same person as the standard sample signatures.
The report also indicated that forged documents were used to obtain new tax declarations in the name of Dr. Epitacio Tongohan, effectively canceling tax declarations in the name of Vicente Follosco.

Respondent’s Defense Theory

Atty. Rafael Mateo did not deny that he notarized the questioned documents.
He claimed that the documents were already prepared and executed when they were submitted to him for notarization.
He asserted that he was familiar with the complainants and therefore “unsuspectingly” affixed his signatures.
He stated that he had no intention to cause damage to the complainants.
The Court treated the lack of intent and claim of familiarity as insufficient to excuse noncompliance with notarial requirements.

Governing Notarial Law

The Court applied Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law.
Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 required that the acknowledgment must be made before a notary public or an authorized officer in the place where the act is done.
Under Section 1(a), the notary public must certify that the acknowledging person is known to him and is the same person who executed the instrument.
The notarial acknowledgment required that the certificate be made under the official seal, if the notary public was required by law to keep a seal, and otherwise state that fact.
The Court emphasized that the law’s structure required the person acknowledging to appear before the notary public or authorized officer.

Notarial Duty and Substantive Public Interest

The Court held that the respondent’s failure to require personal appearance before notarization breached the core statutory command.
The Court found that the respondent’s defense did not establish compliance with the requirement that the affiants must personally appear