A.C. No. 11396 - Gonzales vs. Banares

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11396)

Factual Background

On September 23, 2010, a Deed of Absolute Sale covering three parcels of land was executed between Lilia Gonzales as seller and Flordeliza Soriano as buyer. The deed bore the names and signatures of Rodolfo Gonzales and of Franco B. Gonzales as witnesses, despite Franco's allegation that both Rodolfo and he were not physically present when the instrument was signed. Franco alleged that Atty. Danilo B. Banares, acting as notary public, nevertheless notarized the deed despite knowledge of their absence.

Respondent's Account and Evidentiary Record

Atty. Danilo B. Banares denied wrongful conduct. The record contained affidavits, including one by Lilia Gonzales, which placed Franco at the signing as an instrumental witness who wrote his name and affixed his signature in the presence of the contracting parties. Banares asserted that Rodolfo had "pre-signed" the document to manifest his conformity as the seller's husband and not as a co-owner, and that prior meetings with the parties had occurred.

Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended suspension of Banares's notarial commission for one year. The IBP Board of Governors, however, modified that recommendation by Resolution No. XXII-2015-94 and imposed the following: suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months; immediate revocation of his commission as notary public; and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.

The Parties' Contentions

The complainant maintained that the signatures attributed to Rodolfo and Franco were procured and notarized without their personal appearance, rendering the notarization improper and the deed suspect. The respondent contended that Franco was present and signed as an instrumental witness and that Rodolfo's pre-signature constituted his conformity as husband but did not require personal appearance as co-owner.

Issues Presented

The central issue was whether Atty. Danilo B. Banares committed administrative misconduct by notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without securing the personal appearance of Rodolfo Gonzales and without satisfying the notarial requisites prescribed by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, thereby violating professional duties under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court upheld the IBP's findings and recommendations. The Court found Atty. Danilo B. Banares administratively liable for notarizing the deed without the personal appearance of Rodolfo Gonzales. The Court suspended Banares from the practice of law for six (6) months, revoked his notarial commission if then held, and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years, all effective upon receipt of the Decision. The Court additionally warned that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely and ordered the inclusion and dissemination of the Decision in Banares's records.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that notarization serves to assure the public that the provisions of a document reflect the true agreement of the parties and that notarial practice is invested with public interest. A notary public must verify that the persons appearing in the instrument are the same persons who executed it. The Court emphasized that notarization cannot be performed in the absence of the acknowledging party because doing so risks exclusion of terms favorable to vendors and renders forgery possible. The Court relied on the definition of "Acknowledgment" in Rule II, Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires that an individual "appear in person before the notary public" and present an integrally complete instrument, be personally known or properly identified, and declare that the signature was voluntarily affixed and that the instrument is his free act and deed. The Court also invoked Rule IV, Section 2(b), which prohibits notarial acts when the signatory is not personally present or not personally known or otherwise identified by competent evidence of identity.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court found no documentary or testimonial evidence that Rodolfo personally appeared before Banares on September 23, 2010, or personally affixed his signature in Banares's presence. Banares's own admission that Rodolfo had "pre-signed" contradicted the notarial certification in the Acknowledgment clause that Rodolfo "personally appeared before him on September 23, 2010&qu

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11396)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Franco B. Gonzales filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Danilo B. Banares for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in violation of notarial requirements.
The complaint concerned a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed on September 23, 2010, involving the sale of three parcels of land.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended suspension of Banares from his commission as notary public for one year.
On November 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors modified the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation and imposed six months suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification for two years as notary public.
The Court reviewed the IBP findings and rendered the present decision affirming administrative liability and imposing disciplinary penalties.

Key Factual Allegations

Franco B. Gonzales alleged that his father, Rodolfo Gonzales, and he were not physically present when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, yet their names and signatures appeared in the document.
The deed identified Lilia Gonzales as seller and Flordeliza Soriano as buyer for the subject parcels.
Atty. Danilo B. Banares notarized the deed despite the alleged absence of Rodolfo and Franco from the scene of execution.
Atty. Danilo B. Banares asserted that Franco was present as an instrumental witness and that Rodolfo had pre-signed to manifest his conformity as the seller’s husband but not as co-owner.
The respondent admitted that Rodolfo “pre-signed” the document, while the notarized acknowledgment certified that Rodolfo personally appeared and acknowledged the instrument on September 23, 2010.

Issues Presented

Whether Atty. Danilo B. Banares notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without the acknowledging parties personally appearing before him.
Whether notarizing the deed under the foregoing circumstances violated the notarial rules and the lawyer’s ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the IBP were appropriate and should be affirmed by the Court.

Contentions of the Parties

Franco B. Gonzales contended that the notarization occurred despite the absence of the persons whose names and signatures appeared in the deed, and that Banares knowingly notarized a defective instrument.
Atty. Danilo B. Banares contended that Franco was present and signed as instrumental witness and that Rodolfo pre-signed only to manifest marital conformity rather than to sign as co-owner.
The IBP investigating commissioner recommended one year suspension from notarial commission, while the IBP Board of Governors recommended a six months suspension from the practice of law, revocation of commission, and two years disqualification as notary public.

Statutory Framework

The Court relied on the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including Rule II, Section 1 which defines “Acknowledgment” as personal appearance, identification, and declaration that the signature was voluntarily affixed.
The Court also relied on Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or not personally known or otherwise identified by competent evidence of identity.
The Court applied Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of t