Case Summary (G.R. No. 250159)
Petitioner / Complainant Allegations
Complainant alleged in a Sinumpaang Reklamo (December 16, 2013) that respondent notarized: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 30, 2008; (2) an Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note dated July 30, 2008; and (3) a Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights dated April 24, 2009. Complainant maintained that neither she nor her daughter executed or personally subscribed these documents before respondent and that her daughter was living abroad during the relevant period. Additional defects alleged include lack of competent evidence of identity, absence of technical description in the deed, execution outside respondent’s notarial jurisdiction, delayed notarization dates, and a false notarial certification referencing document/page numbers that pertained to another instrument in respondent’s Notarial Book.
Respondent’s Position
In his Comment dated July 18, 2014, respondent contended that complainant personally came to his office with companions and witnesses, presented the documents already bearing signatures of witnesses, and that he had affixed his signature and notarial seal before they disclosed lack of competent proofs of identity. He claimed he retained the documents pending presentation of identification and denied turning them over to complainant; he also asserted that complainant benefited from the documents in related ejectment litigation and continued occupying the property.
Proceedings Before the IBP-Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Committee on Bar Discipline investigated the complaint, assigned an investigating commissioner, and scheduled a mandatory conference (June 19, 2015) which respondent failed to attend despite notice. Complainant filed a verified position paper (July 21, 2015); respondent failed to comply with the order to submit position papers. The investigating commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation (August 25, 2015) finding that respondent failed to observe due care as a notary public and recommending suspension from the practice of law for one year and revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification, imposing revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Nature and Objective of Disciplinary Proceedings
The Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, not purely civil nor criminal, and are investigations to determine whether an attorney should retain professional privileges. The primary concern is whether respondent, in his capacity as a duly commissioned notary public and lawyer, violated the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted that alleged benefit to complainant does not excuse or defeat a complaint alleging irregular notarization.
Personal Appearance Requirement for Notarization
The Court emphasized the elemental requirement that the principal must personally appear before the notary public to attest to voluntariness and due execution. It quoted the Notarial Rules’ definition of “Acknowledgment” (Section 1, Rule II), which requires: (a) personal appearance with an integrally complete instrument, (b) attestation that the signatory is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, and (c) representation that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Complainant produced a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation certification showing her daughter left the Philippines on November 3, 2006; the certification did not affirm the daughter’s absence in April 2009, and the Court recognized a presumption of regularity in respondent’s official acts, thereby not fully crediting complainant’s assertion on the basis of that certificate alone.
Failure to Require Competent Evidence of Identity
The Court found respondent admitted in his Comment that he notarized the documents and only thereafter learned that the parties lacked competent proofs of identity. This admission established respondent’s failure to satisfy the twofold requirement under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules: (1) personal presence at the time of notarization and (2) personal knowledge or identification through competent evidence of identity. The Court stressed that competent evidence of identity is necessary both to verify identity and to accurately complete entries in the notarial register (Section 2(a), Rule VI). Respondent’s explanation—that he believed the parties were who they represented themselves to be and later impounded the documents—was rejected as lacking credibility and inconsistent with the duties of a notary public.
Improper Use of Jurat Instead of Acknowledgment
The Court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale required an acknowledgment, not a jurat. A jurat attests that the instrument was subscribed and sworn before the notary; an acknowledgment requires the signatory to declare the execution as the signatory’s voluntary act. Respondent certified the deed with a jurat, demonstrating a failure to distinguish between notarial acts and a lack of requisite knowledge or care.
Incorrect Entries in the Notarial Register
The Court found that the Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note was assigned entry Doc. No. 41, Page No. 9, Book No. 10, Series of 2009 in respondent’s notarial register; verification with the Clerk of Court showed that this entry in fact pertained to a different document executed by other individuals on April 24, 2009. This misentry violated Section 2(e), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which mandates accurate correlate numbering between instruments and register entries and forbids gaps. The Court emphasized that a notary is charged with accurately recording details so as to preserve the authenticity and reliability of notarized documents.
Notarial Jurisdiction Issue
Complainant alleged the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in Camarines Sur but notarized in Quezon City, which would implicate notarial jurisdiction. The Court found no affirmative indication on the deed that respondent misrepresented his notarial commission as having been issued in Camarines Sur; the notarial details reflected issuance in Quezon City. The Court acknowledged that it is not prohibited for a deed executed elsewhere to be brought to a notary in a different jurisdiction provided the parties personally appear before that notary at the time of notarization. Thus, absent additional proof that notarization occurred outside respondent’s commission or that respondent misrepresented his commission, the Court did not sustain a separate jurisdictional violation.
Ethical and Professional Violations
The Court concluded respondent was negligent on multiple counts: performing notarial acts without competent evidence of identity, certifying with an inappropriate jurat, a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 250159)
Case Caption, Court, and Decision Information
- Reported at 869 Phil. 1, First Division, A.C. No. 10315 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4553), decided January 22, 2020.
- Complainant: Librada A. Ladrera.
- Respondent: Atty. Ramiro S. Osorio.
- Decision penned by Justice Lazaro-Javier; Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concurred.
- Nature of proceeding: disciplinary action for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1, Rule 1.01), and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Subject of the Complaint — Documents and Alleged Irregularities
- Documents alleged to have been notarized by Atty. Osorio without proper formalities:
- Deed of Absaloute (sic) Sale dated June 30, 2008.
- Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note dated July 30, 2008.
- Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights dated April 24, 2009.
- Names appearing in the three documents: complainant Librada A. Ladrera and her daughter Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar indicated as buyers of property allegedly owned by respondent’s client Dalia (sometimes spelled “Delia” or “Dhalia”) Valladolid‑Rousan.
- Central factual assertion by complainant: neither she nor her daughter executed or personally subscribed to the questioned documents before Atty. Osorio; her daughter was living abroad during the relevant dates.
- Specific defects alleged in the documents:
- Deed of Absaloute (sic) Sale (June 30, 2008): no competent evidence of identity indicated; no technical description of the realty; document executed outside respondent’s notarial jurisdiction.
- Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note (July 30, 2008): notarized only on April 24, 2009 (discrepancy in dates).
- Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver (April 24, 2009): absence of indicated competent evidence of identity; notarial certification falsely indicates document and page number belonging to another instrument in respondent’s Notarial Book.
Respondent’s Version and Formal Comment
- In his Comment dated July 18, 2014, Atty. Osorio asserted:
- Complainant was the direct beneficiary of the documents and had even used them in an ejectment case filed by Rousan.
- Complainant continued to occupy Rousan’s property and had not paid the full purchase price; she refused to return it despite demand.
- Complainant and companions appeared at his office and presented the documents with signatures of witnesses already affixed.
- He had affixed his signature and notarial seal to the documents when complainant belatedly disclosed that they lacked competent proofs of identity.
- He instructed them to leave the documents with him pending presentation of valid identifications and claimed he never turned the documents over; he professed ignorance as to how complainant later obtained them.
- He denied delay for money or malice and stated he was not paid for notarizing the documents.
Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD)
- Case referred to IBP‑CBD for investigation and recommendation; Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos assigned.
- Mandatory conference set for June 19, 2015: only complainant and counsel appeared; respondent did not attend despite notice.
- Parties ordered to file verified position papers with supporting documents/affidavits.
- Complainant filed her verified position paper on July 21, 2015; respondent failed to comply with the order.
- Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (August 25, 2015) found respondent guilty of lack of due care in notarization because of:
- absence of the persons supposedly involved;
- lack of competent evidence of identity for signatories;
- lack of authority to notarize documents executed outside his notarial jurisdiction (Quezon City);
- absence of required notarial acknowledgment on deeds of conveyance (mere jurat attached was improper).
- Commissioner Gomos recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year and revocation of notarial commission.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration
- IBP Board of Governors, under Resolution No. XXII-2016-217 dated February 25, 2016, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation with modification of penalty:
- Immediate revocation of notarial commission;
- Disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years;
- Suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.
- Respondent’s motion for reconsideration denied under Resolution No. XXII-2017-786 dated January 27, 2017.
Legal Standard — Nature and Objective of Disciplinary Proceedings
- Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis: neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they are court investigations into the conduct of its officers, with public interest as the primary objective.
- The core question: whether the attorney should continue to be allowed the privileges of his office.
- The Court’s primary task: determine whether Atty. Osorio, as a duly commissioned notary public and lawyer, violated the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Requirement of Personal Appearance and Definition of Acknowledgment
- Personal appearance before the notary is a basic requirement for notarization to effect acknowledgment under Section 1, Rule II of the Notarial Rules.
- Quoted elements of acknowle