Case Summary (A.C. No. 10315)
Respondent’s Assertions
Atty. Osorio maintained that:
• The complainant and her companions appeared with pre-signed documents and affixed witness signatures;
• He affixed his seal before realizing they lacked identification;
• He retained the documents pending presentation of ID but they later reached complainant by unknown means; and
• He received no fee and harbored no malice.
IBP-CBD Proceedings
• Case referred to the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
• Complainant attended mandatory conference; respondent did not.
• Complainant filed a verified position paper; respondent failed to submit any.
• Investigating Commissioner found multiple notarial practice violations.
IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation
Violations identified:
• Notarizing documents in the absence of affiants;
• Failing to require competent evidence of identity;
• Notarizing outside of notarial jurisdiction; and
• Attaching a jurat instead of acknowledgment on a deed of conveyance.
Recommended penalty: one-year suspension from law practice and revocation of notarial commission.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
Adopted findings of the IBP-CBD with modified penalties:
• Immediate revocation of notarial commission;
• Disqualification from reappointment as notary for two years; and
• Suspension from the practice of law for six months.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Notarial Practice Violations
- Personal Appearance and Identity
• Rule IV, Sec. 2(b): principal must appear and present competent evidence of identity.
• Osorio admitted notarizing before verifying IDs and lacked personal knowledge of affiants. - Jurat vs. Acknowledgment
• Rule II, Sec. 1 requires acknowledgment for deeds of conveyance.
• Osorio improperly used a jurat on the Deed of Absolute Sale. - Notarial Register Entries
• Rule VI, Sec. 2(a) and Rule XI, Sec. 1(b): notary must record accurate register entries.
• Osorio misnumbered and misidentified a promissory note entry.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Professional Responsibility and Lawyer’s Oath
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility: lawyers must uphold laws and legal processes.
• Lawyer’s Oath: prohibits falsehood and commands obedience to law.
• Osorio’s negligence and misrepresentations undermined the integri
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10315)
Case Background
- Decision rendered by the Supreme Court, First Division, on January 22, 2020
- A.C. No. 10315 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4553)
- Complainant: Librada A. Ladrera
- Respondent: Atty. Ramiro S. Osorio
- Subject: Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Lawyer’s Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Facts of the Case
- Three notarized instruments implicated:
- Deed of Absolute 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
- Instruments purportedly executed by complainant and her daughter, Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar, as buyers of property owned by Dalia Valladolid-Rousan
- Neither complainant nor her daughter actually signed or appeared before the notary
- Complainant’s daughter was documented to be abroad during the notarization dates
Alleged Defects in Notarization
- Deed of Absolute Sale:
- No competent evidence of identity indicated
- Absence of technical description of the realty
- Executed outside respondent’s notarial jurisdiction
- Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note: Notarized on April 24, 2009 despite a July 30, 2008 date
- Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver:
- No competent evidence of identity indicated
- False notarial certification referring to another document and page in the Notarial Book
Respondent’s Defense
- Claimed complainant personally appeared with witnesses and presented pre-signed documents
- Asserted he affixed his signature and seal before learning of absent proofs of identity
- Advised parties to return with valid IDs and retained the documents
- Denied turning over the notarized instruments to complainant
- Maintained no monetary or malicious motive; alleged non-payment for services
IBP-CBD Proceedings
- Case referred to IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, Investigating Commissioner: Jose Alfonso M. Gomos
- Mandatory conference set on June 19, 2015; only complainant appeared
- Parties ordered to file verified position papers; respondent failed to comply
- Complainant filed on July 21, 2015; respondent did not submit
IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation
- August 25, 2015 report found respondent failed to obs