A.C. No. 3849 - Vda. de Bernardo vs. Restauro

Case Summary (A.C. No. 3849)

Facts Leading to the Administrative Complaint

Complainant alleged that on July 19, 1990, respondent prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney making it appear that complainant, her deceased spouse Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as attorney-in-fact to sell a parcel of land in Davao City covered by TCT No. T-39100, notwithstanding that they neither appeared nor executed and acknowledged the document before respondent.

Complainant further alleged that respondent entered the Special Power of Attorney in his notarial register as Doc. No. 380, Page No. 76, Book No. XIX, Series of 1990. She also invoked a death certificate to contend that her husband, Alberto Bernardo, died on January 30, 1980 at the Pangasinan Medical Center. Thus, she argued that when the Special Power of Attorney was executed in 1990, her husband had been dead for more than ten years. Complainant claimed that she only learned of the sale affecting her share when she attempted to recover her interest from a third party.

To pursue recovery, complainant hired counsel on a contingent basis, agreeing to pay twenty-five percent of the value of her share. She prayed that respondent be disbarred or indefinitely suspended, and that he be ordered to pay the value of her pro indiviso half share, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

Respondent’s Answer and Defense

In his Answer, respondent denied that he knowingly notarized a fraudulent instrument. He averred that he would not have known the names of Felicidad Soriano, Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia unless those persons went to his office to request the preparation of the Special Power of Attorney. He maintained that he would not have notarized the document if they had not appeared before him and acknowledged it as their act and deed.

Respondent also stated that the persons concerned brought TCT No. T-39100 with them. He further asserted that a living Alberto Bernardo appeared in Davao City and signed the Special Power of Attorney at the time of execution. Respondent added that Pangasinan and Davao City are far apart; hence, even events like the death of a person are not automatically known to everybody.

Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Referral to the IBP and the Conduct of the Investigation

On September 14, 1992, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner set the hearing on November 16, 1993. During the hearing, only complainant and her counsel were present. Complainant testified and identified the documents mentioned in the complaint. She submitted a Formal Offer of Evidence dated November 19, 1993.

On November 18, 1993, respondent submitted a Manifestation dated November 9, 1993. He explained that he could not attend the November 16, 1993 hearing due to prior commitments and, if the hearing could not be postponed, he waived his right to attend. In his comments and objections to complainant’s formal offer of evidence, respondent insisted that he acted in good faith. He also argued that the persons involved were all present; otherwise, execution of the Special Power of Attorney would not have been possible. He requested that complainant’s evidence be not admitted.

As directed by the Commissioner, complainant filed a Memorandum. Respondent did not file a memorandum. In her memorandum, complainant alleged that whoever appeared before respondent at the time of notarization and claimed to be her and her deceased husband were impostors. She acknowledged that respondent might initially be in good faith when the supposed Alberto Bernardo first appeared for the preparation and notarization. However, she alleged that respondent became bad faith after she, through counsel, informed respondent on May 6, 1992, nearly two years after the execution, that the persons who appeared were impostors and that respondent refused to contact them or retract the unauthorized Special Power of Attorney.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board

In the report, the Investigating Commissioner found that complainant failed to satisfactorily establish that respondent participated in or was a party to the fraudulent execution of the Special Power of Attorney. The Commissioner treated respondent’s participation as limited to the preparation and notarization of the document based on the parties’ identification papers and their representations of identity.

The Commissioner observed that the notarial acknowledgment showed that the alleged impostors presented Community Tax Certificates bearing the names of complainant Felicidad G. Soriano and her deceased husband Alberto Bernardo. The Commissioner nevertheless recognized that a notary public is required to exercise due diligence. The Commissioner stressed that while a notary must determine identity and require personal appearance and acknowledgment, the standard does not extend to a general obligation to go beyond presented identification papers and documents. At the same time, the Commissioner emphasized that a notary public’s office is imbued with public trust and service, and that due diligence must be exercised, particularly where the document authorizes the disposition of property.

The Commissioner concluded that respondent should have exerted utmost efforts to determine the real identity of the persons executing the Special Power of Attorney. The document authorized Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. to sell complainant’s pro indiviso half share in property covered by TCT No. T-39100.

Accordingly, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be penalized for negligence and failure to observe the required diligence, and that his commission as notary public be revoked for an indefinite period until he could demonstrate to the Court that he again deserved to act as notary public.

The IBP Board of Governors, through a Resolution dated August 3, 2002, adopted the report and recommendation. It found respondent’s failure to exercise utmost diligence and disregard of the Commission’s orders to be a sufficient basis for disciplinary action. It imposed reprimand coupled with revocation of respondent’s commission as notary public for an indefinite period, until respondent could demonstrate to the Court that he again deserved to be allowed to act as notary public.

On January 13, 2003, the Court noted the IBP resolution.

The Supreme Court’s Evaluation of the Notary Public’s Duties

The Court framed the issue around the principal function of a notary public: the authentication of documents. It held that when a notary certifies to due execution and delivery under his hand and seal, the document is accorded the force of evidence. It further emphasized that one purpose of notarization is to allow documents to be given effect without further proof of execution and delivery. Thus, the Court underscored that courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgment made before a notary.

The Court reiterated that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. This reliability requirement, in turn, demanded accurate and faithful discharge of powers and duties, as the notary’s role is impressed with public interest.

Applying these standards, the Court agreed with the IBP that respondent, as notary public, should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identities of the persons who executed the Special Power of Attorney. The Court considered the nature of the document significant because it authorized the sale of complainant’s pro indiviso half share in real property covered by TCT No. T-39100.

Disposition: Penalty, Scope, and Warning

Despite finding respondent’s failure to exercise the required diligence, the Court ruled that the act, under the circumstances, did not warrant disbarment or indefinite suspension. The Court relied on the absence of evidence showing fraud in respondent’s participation. It therefore adjusted the penalty to one it deemed commensurate: a suspension of six (6) months as notary public for failure to exercise utmost diligence.

The Court also issued a direct caution to all notaries public to be careful and diligent in ascertaining the true identities of persons executing documents, especially where property disposition is involved. It stated that similar cases in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning anchor

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 3849)

Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo (married to the late Alberto Bernardo) filed a complaint seeking the disbarment or indefinite suspension of Atty. Jose R. Restauro of Davao City for malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct.
The complaint was anchored on a Special Power of Attorney allegedly notarized by respondent which would authorize a third person to sell property covered by TCT No. T-39100.
The Supreme Court ultimately imposed a penalty of suspension as notary public for a limited period, rather than the harsher sanction prayed for in the complaint.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo appeared as the complainant before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Jose R. Restauro appeared as the respondent, the notary public who notarized the questioned document.
On June 8, 1992, complainant filed the complaint for disbarment or indefinite suspension.
On September 14, 1992, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner set the hearing for November 16, 1993.
At the hearing, only complainant and her counsel were present, and complainant submitted a Formal Offer of Evidence dated November 19, 1993.
Respondent later filed a Manifestation dated November 9, 1993 indicating he could not attend the scheduled hearing and waiving attendance if not postponed.
Respondent filed Comments/Objections on complainant’s Formal Offer of Evidence.
Complainant filed a Memorandum after the Commissioner’s direction, while respondent did not file a memorandum.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended reprimand and revocation of respondent’s commission as notary public for an indefinite period subject to later demonstration of worthiness.
The IBP Board of Governors, in a resolution dated August 3, 2002, adopted and approved the Commissioner’s report and recommendation, and ordered reprimand with revocation of respondent’s notarial commission for an indefinite period.
The Supreme Court noted the IBP resolution on January 13, 2003, and rendered its own ruling imposing a six-month suspension as notary public.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant and her co-owner, Marcelino G. Soriano (married to Hildegarda Mejia), were co-owners of a parcel of land in Davao City with an area of 561 square meters, covered by TCT No. T-39100.
The challenged act occurred through a Special Power of Attorney purportedly prepared and notarized by respondent on July 19, 1990.
Complainant alleged that the Special Power of Attorney made it appear that complainant (under her full maiden name Felicidad G. Soriano), her deceased spouse Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as attorney-in-fact to sell property covered by TCT No. T-39100.
Complainant asserted that she, her deceased husband, and Hildegarda Mejia neither appeared before respondent nor executed and acknowledged the document.
Complainant pointed to the Notarial Register entry made by respondent, stating it was entered as Doc. No. 380, Page No. 76, Book No. XIX, Series of 1990.
Complainant asserted that Alberto Bernardo could not have appeared and executed the Special Power of Attorney on July 19, 1990 because he died on January 30, 1980, as evidenced by a death certificate.
Complainant concluded that at the time the Special Power of Attorney was executed, her husband had been dead for more than ten years.
Complainant also alleged that to recover her share after the sale to a third party, she hired counsel on a contingent basis of twenty-five percent of the value of her share.
Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred or indefinitely suspended, and that he be ordered to pay the value of her pro indiviso half share, the attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.
Respondent countered that he could not have known the involved persons if they had not come to his office to request preparation of the Special Power of Attorney.
Respondent stated he would not have notarized the document if the persons involved had not appeared before him and acknowledged it as their act and deed.
Respondent averred that the parties brought their title (TCT No. T-39100) and related identification papers.
Respondent maintained that a living Alberto Bernardo appeared before him in Davao City and signed at the time of execution.
Respondent argued that Pangasinan and Davao City are far apart, hence the death of complainant’s husband was not necessarily known to him.
In her memorandum, complainant alleged that the alleged persons who appeared before respondent were impostors, and she further claimed that after she informed respondent through counsel on May 6, 1992—nearly two years after execution—respondent acted in bad faith by not contacting the impostors and not retracting the unauthorized Special Power of Attorney.
The Investigating Commissioner found that it was not satisfactorily established that respondent was a party to the fraudulent execution, and characterized respondent’s role as limited to preparation and notarization based on identification papers and representations presented by the persons claiming to b