A.C. No. 9334 - Lopez vs. Mata

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9334)

Facts and Allegations in the Complaint

Moises Legaspino had children from two marriages. After the deaths of Moises and his second wife Victoria, a property of 49,817 square meters was inherited by their heirs. Conrado, as an heir through his adoptive father Restituto Lopez, was the owner of a 24,908 square meter share identified as Lot No. 1696-H. Restituto executed an inter vivos will leaving this property to Conrado, who only gained possession of the document many years later.

Judge Rogelio Lucmayon, son of one of the co-heirs, requested Conrado to execute several Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs), purportedly to facilitate the sale of the property. The first SPA was notarized properly by Atty. Mata with Conrado’s presence. However, for the subsequent SPAs, although Conrado admitted signing, he did not personally appear before the notaries Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata during their notarization. Conrado also discovered a deed of sale, purportedly signed by him conveying his share to a third party, notarized by Atty. Abellana, which he denied executing or appearing for notarization. Moreover, Atty. Abellana failed to file his 2004 notarial report with the Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City.

Responses of the Respondents

Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity in his official duties and asserted that the complainant admitted signing the document. He claimed the complaint was an attempt to malign his reputation. Atty. Mata contended that he trusted the representations made by Judge Lucmayon and did not question the presence of Conrado during notarization out of respect for the judge. Atty. Abellana disputed the sufficiency of the complaint and dismissed the failure to submit his notarial report as immaterial.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Findings and Recommendations

The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Sentillas failed to secure competent proof of identity when notarizing the second SPA since Conrado did not personally appear and only presented a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), which does not satisfy the requirement for competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Atty. Mata failed to ascertain the presence of Conrado during notarization of the third SPA and admitted to neglecting this duty out of respect for Judge Lucmayon. Atty. Abellana failed to submit his notarial report for 2004, and the deed of sale he notarized was not recorded with the Clerk of Court, casting doubts on its authenticity. The IBP recommended revocation of the respondents’ notarial commissions, suspension from the practice of law (three months for Mata and Sentillas; longer for Abellana), and disqualification from reappointment as notaries public for two years.

IBP Board of Governors Resolution and Subsequent Motions

The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the recommendations with modifications, increasing the suspension of Mata and Sentillas to six months, and that of Abellana to three years due to a previous sanction. They ordered immediate revocation of notarial commissions and disqualification from reappointment for two years (Mata and Sentillas) and one year (Abellana). Motions for reconsideration filed by Sentillas and Abellana were denied.

Issues Presented

The central issue is whether the respondents should be sanctioned for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents without properly ascertaining the identity and presence of the corresponding signatories.

Legal Analysis on Notarial Practice and Duties

The court emphasized that notarization is a solemn act infused with substantial public interest and legal consequences. Notaries public must exercise the highest degree of care, attentiveness, and integrity when performing their duties. The observation and verification of identity are mandatory to preserve the public’s trust and confidence. Notarized documents become public instruments, entitled to full faith and credit, making the notary’s role critical.

Section 2(b)(1) of Rule IV and Section 12 of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require the physical presence of the signatory and the presentation of competent evidence of identity, such as government-issued IDs bearing photographs and signatures. A CTC does not qualify as competent evidence because it lacks these features.

Specific Findings on Respondents’ Failures

Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas notarized the Second SPA relying solely on a CTC as evidence of identity despite Conrado’s denial of personal appearance before him. The invocation of the presumption of regularity failed because of this clear violation of notarial rules regarding identification.
Atty. Arturo C. Mata notarized the Third SPA with a “Waiver of Rights” clause without personally verifying Conrado’s presence or identity, merely trusting the judge’s statements. Respect for public officials does not excuse neglecting the legal obligation to ensure the signer’s identity.
Atty. Gines N. Abellana notarized a deed of sale presenting only a CTC as identification and failed to submit the mandatory notarial register for 2004 to the Clerk of Court, breaching Sections 246 and 249 of the 1917 Revised Administrative Code. These derelictions undermine the notarial system’s integrity and violate public policy requiring strict compliance.

Professional Responsibility and Ethical Considerations

Respondents’ failure constitutes dishonesty and malpractice in violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. By certifying the documents’ authenticity without proper verification, the respondents undermined public trust and committed grave offenses warranting revocation and suspension.

Effect of Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance and Settlement

The court clarified that desistance by the complainant does not terminate the administrative case against the lawyers as disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, undertaken for public interest and not pr

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9334)

Facts of the Case

Complainant Conrado Abe Lopez filed a complaint dated December 28, 2011 against respondents Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana alleging dishonesty, malpractice, and violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, praying for their disbarment.
The dispute involves ownership of a 49,817 square-meter parcel of land originally belonging to Moises Legaspino, who married twice, with children from first marriage inheriting half and Victoria Lopez’s son Restituto Lopez (Conrado’s adoptive father) receiving the other half.
The property shares were further divided and consolidated among heirs, including Pedro Lucmayon, Honorata’s son, and Conrado Lopez.
Restituto Lopez executed a "Katapusang Pamigon Intervivos" (Testament) bequeathing his inheritance to Conrado but kept in possession due to Conrado's minority.
Starting in early 2000s, Judge Rogelio Lucmayon, son of Pedro Lucmayon, requested Conrado to execute several Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) purportedly for the sale of the property.
Conrado executed First SPA on July 12, 2004 before Atty. Mata; Second SPA was signed by Conrado but notarized by Atty. Sentillas without Conrado’s personal appearance; Third SPA was signed by Conrado but notarized by Atty. Mata, also without Conrado’s personal presence.
Conrado was unaware the Third SPA contained a waiver of rights over the property and noticed discrepancies about the lot number in the testament.
Conrado also discovered a Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004, notarized by Atty. Abellana, purporting that Conrado sold his share, but denied signing or personally appearing before Atty. Abellana.
Atty. Abellana reportedly did not file his 2004 Notarial Report as required.
Conrado filed charges against respondents for violations of notarial rules; concurrently, Pedro Lucmayon filed a quieting of title case involving the same documents.
Complaint against Judge Lucmayon, Sentillas, and Mata for falsification was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor.

Defenses of the Respondents

Atty. Sentillas claimed presumption of regularity in his official acts and asserted that the complainant admitted signing the Second SPA.
Atty. Mata claimed that Complainant voluntarily signed the waiver and allowed Judge Lucmayon to secure a notary for notarization; he believed Conrado was present based on his trust and respect for the judge.
Atty. Abellana neither admitted nor denied the charges, citing incomplete complaint pages, and insisted failure to submit the 2004 Notarial Report and missing copy of the Deed of Sale were immaterial. He also pointed out the complaint lacked verification and certification against forum shopping.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Report and Recommendation

The IBP-CBD found:
- Atty. Sentillas failed to secure competent proof of identity when notarizing the Second SPA.
- Atty. Mata failed to verify the presence of Conrado when notarizing the Third SPA, admitting to neglect out of respect for Judge Lucmayon.
- Atty. Abellana did not file his 2004 Notarial Report, casting doubt on the authenticity of the Deed of Sale he notarized.
Proposed sanctions included revocation of notarial commissions, a two-year disqualification from reappointment, and three-month suspension from practice of law.
Warned that repeat offenses would incur stricter penalties.

IBP Board of Governors' Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration

The IBP BOG affirmed with modification the IBP-CBD’s recommendations on October 11, 2014:
- Increased suspension of Atty. Mata and Atty. Sentillas from three to six months.
- Suspended Atty. Abellana for three years due to prior sanctions.
- Immediate revocation of respondents’ notarial commissions and disqualification from reappointment for two y