Case Summary (G.R. No. 104222)
Allegations and Respondent's Admission
The complaint charged Atty. Bernabe with notarizing a forged Deed of Donation involving Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom had passed away before the document was executed. In response to the allegations, the respondent admitted the deaths of the mentioned parties, producing death certificates as evidence. However, he claimed ignorance of their mortality, asserting that he had taken steps to confirm the identities of the individuals who appeared before him.
Procedural Background
Following the submission of his Answer, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for a thorough investigation. The core issue identified was whether Atty. Bernabe's actions constituted a falsehood in breach of both his ethical obligations as a lawyer and his duties as a notarial officer.
Legal Standards and Findings
Under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2013, also known as the Notarial Law, a notary public is required to certify that the person acknowledging a document is known to them and has executed it freely. The IBP found that Atty. Bernabe failed to secure and verify residence certificates from the individuals involved in the Deed of Donation, which are crucial for establishing identity.
Gross Negligence and Judicial Admission
The records revealed, including the respondent's judicial admissions regarding the deaths of the supposed donors, underscored Atty. Bernabe's gross negligence in failing to fulfill basic requirements mandated by the Notarial Law. His admission confirmed that the donors could not have personally appeared to acknowledge the document in question, thereby reinforcing the gravity of the offense.
Recommendations from the IBP
The IBP Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension of Atty. Bernabe's notarial commission and a warning that future infractions would result in more severe penalties. This recommendation was subsequently adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on October 22, 2005.
Supervening Events and Re-evaluation
Several events after the IBP's decision, including another case against the respondent concerning improper notarization, further complicated matters. The Court had previously suspended Atty. Bernabe from practicing law for similar infractions, recognizing a pattern of negligence.
The Court’s Final Ruling
In reviewing the case, the Court emphasized the significant responsibilities entailed in being a notary public, asserting that notarization must not be treated as a mere formality. Notably, Atty. Bernabe's recurring failures warranted a more severe sanction than previously recommended.
Disbarment and Penal Outcomes
Ultimat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 104222)
Case Overview
- The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe.
- The complaint centers on the notarization of a falsified Deed of Donation of real property.
- The notarization occurred despite the non-appearance of the purported donors, who were deceased at the time of the document's execution.
Parties Involved
- Complainant: Luzviminda R. Lustestica, daughter of the deceased donors.
- Respondent: Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, the notary public who notarized the contested document.
Facts of the Case
- The Deed of Donation was executed on August 5, 1994, allegedly by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already deceased.
- The respondent acknowledged the death of the donors in his answer to the complaint, referencing their death certificates.
- Atty. Bernabe claimed ignorance of their deaths and stated he made efforts to verify the identities of the individuals who appeared before him as donors.
Proceedings and Investigations
- The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation and evaluation.
- The core issue was whether the respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his duties as a lawyer and notary public.
Findings by the IBP Commission
- The IBP found that the respondent failed to comply with Public Act No. 2013 (Notarial Law), which mand