Title
Rigon, Jr. vs. Subia
Case
A.C. No. 10249
Decision Date
Sep 7, 2020
Atty. Subia found guilty of notarizing a fraudulent deed involving deceased individuals, violating Notarial Rules, resulting in suspension and disqualification.
notarial commission
notary public
suspension

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224302)

Factual Background

Virgilio, Jr. alleged that Placido Rigon (Placido) was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. T-20, later reconstituted in 1976 and registered under TCT No. T-99481. On June 24, 2011, in the City of Cauayan, Isabela, a Deed of Absolute Sale (subject Deed) allegedly memorialized the sale of a portion of the subject land from Placido, with the conformity of his wife, Telesfora Aczon (Telesfora), to Pete Gerald L. Javier (Javier). The subject Deed was notarized by Atty. Subia and indicated that it was docketed as Doc. No. 20, Page No. 04, Book No. 06, Series of 2011 under Atty. Subia’s notarial register.

The complaint asserted that Placido died on February 5, 1940 and that Telesfora died on December 8, 1961, well before June 24, 2011. It claimed, therefore, that Atty. Subia made it appear that both spouses were signatories when, in fact, they were already dead at the time of the supposed execution. It further alleged that verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of Cauayan City, Isabela revealed that the docket number corresponded to a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons, not the questioned Deed. The subject Deed was nonetheless used to transfer the title of the sold portion to Javier, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. T-397909.

Commencement of Proceedings and Complainant’s Death

The heirs of Placido, through Virgilio, Jr. by authority of a Special Power of Attorney, initiated the administrative disbarment case against Atty. Subia, alleging notarization despite the supposed absence of the required signatories and without the presence of the required two witnesses.

On March 17, 2014, Atty. Subia filed his Comment denying the accusations. He claimed that he did not prepare the questioned document and that someone had falsified and copied his signature. He also presented a Certification from the OCC of Cauayan, Isabela stating that, based on his notarial reports, the entry under Doc. No. 20, Page No. 04, Book No. 06, Series of 2011 was the Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons executed by Jenny A. Foronda and Grace Omanito, and not the subject Deed.

On July 7, 2014, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. On October 7, 2014, the Court received a handwritten letter from Virgilio, Sr., the father of Virgilio, Jr., informing that Virgilio, Jr. had died on August 13, 2014 due to a gunshot wound, while stating that he would continue to follow up the case. On December 1, 2014, Atty. Subia filed a Comment before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) arguing that the complainant’s death warranted dismissal because the father could not substitute for his deceased son and because the Special Power of Attorney allegedly did not extend beyond its stated principals.

IBP Investigation and Findings

The IBP issued an undated Report and Recommendation by Commissioner Ramsey M. Quijano. The Commissioner found that Atty. Subia violated the Notarial Rules. The Report emphasized that Atty. Subia’s denial, standing alone, showed negligence in preserving the substantive public interest attached to notarization because his seal appeared on the questioned document.

On February 22, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s findings through a resolution in CBD Case No. 14-4378. It recommended: the revocation of Atty. Subia’s notarial commission; disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years; and suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The sole issue before the Court was whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Subia liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.

The Court’s Treatment of Procedural Objections

The Court first held that the death of Virgilio, Jr. did not hinder the proceedings. Disciplinary and disbarment proceedings against lawyers were characterized as sui generis, with the primary aim of preserving the integrity of the legal profession. The Court noted that such proceedings may be initiated motu proprio and are not structured as actions with plaintiffs or prosecutors.

The Court also ruled that it would still proceed despite the defect raised as to the Special Power of Attorney. It cited Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended, explaining that disbarment and disciplinary proceedings could be instituted by the Supreme Court motu proprio, by the IBP upon verified complaint of any person, or through its proper mechanisms. The Court held that the requisites for institution were satisfied because a verified Affidavit Complaint was filed and supported by documents, including copies of the questioned subject Deed bearing Atty. Subia’s seal and signature, a certified true and correct copy of TCT No. T-99481, negative certifications of death of Placido and Telesfora, and the OCC certification regarding Atty. Subia’s notarial entry.

Legal Grounds for Liability Under the Notarial Rules

After reviewing the records, the Court affirmed and adopted the IBP-CBD recommendation. It reiterated that the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy, and that notarization is imbued with substantial public interest. A notary public is expected to exercise a high degree of diligence and prudence.

The Court found Atty. Subia at fault for failing to comply with Sections 6 and 8 of Rule II, and Sections 2 and 5(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules. It quoted that a jurat requires, among others, that the individual appears in person before the notary, is personally known or identified by competent evidence of identity, signs in the notary’s presence, and takes an oath or affirmation in that setting. It also identified that a notarial certificate must state the facts attested by the notary and include the notary’s signature and seal. Under the prohibitions, it is improper for a notary to perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence and is not personally known or identified. Under the false or incomplete certificate rule, the notary must not affix an official signature or seal on an incomplete notarial certificate.

The Court held that Atty. Subia’s signature and notarial seal appeared on the subject Deed, yet the evidence indicated that Atty. Subia did not properly verify the signatories allegedly identified as the vendors were already dead at the time of execution. The Court also noted that the subject Deed lacked the signatures of two witnesses, which indicated breaches of the Notarial Rules’ requirements for a valid notarization.

Treatment of Atty. Subia’s Defense of Forgery

The Court did not credit Atty. Subia’s denial that he notarized the subject Deed and his position that his signature had been falsified and forged. It held that bare, unsubstantiated denials could not override the evidence that his seal and signature appeared on the document. The Court observed that while Atty. Subia expressed willingness to submit his specimen signature to expert authorities, he failed to append sufficient evidence to support the claim of forgery. He also did not attempt to obtain a technical examination by a handwriting expert.

According to the Court, absent clear and convincing proof of forgery of the signature and notarial seal, the presumption remained that Atty. Subia was the one who signed and notarized the defective and spurious Deed. The Court agreed with the IBP that but for Atty. Subia’s negligence, the subject Deed would not have borne his seal and signature.

The Court further reasoned that even assuming a third person forged Atty. Subia’s signature, Atty. Subia still bore accountability because his notarial seal appeared on the document and he did not successfully negate the authenticity of his own notarial involvement. The Court added that the perpetrator of the alleged forgery allegedly knew the details of Atty. Subia’s notarial register, reinforcing the finding of negligence in the safeguarding and handling expected of a notary public.

Jurisprudence Applied by the Court

The Court relied on prior cases to define the scope of a notary public’s responsibility. It cited Laquindanum v. Quintana, holding that a notary cannot evade liability by claiming that a spouse who served as secretary notarized without consent, because a notary takes full responsibility for all entries in the notarial register. It also cited Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo, where the Court found negligence in the mechanical preparation and in the safekeeping of the notarial dry seal and notarial register, resulting in suspension and disqualification. Lastly, it referenced Ferguson v. Ramos, where the Court held that denial does not exonerate a notary because the culprit’s access to the notarial registry details shows the notary’s lack of utmost diligence, and it imposed the revocation of the notarial commission and a permanent bar from being commissioned as a notary public.

Penalties Imposed and Disposition

The Court imposed a penalty in line with its treatment of notarial negligence. It found that a suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law was appropriate. It also ordered the immediate suspension o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms