A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974], January 26, 2016
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.
Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo Perez was made to appear as attorney-in-fact of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law.
Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed the SPA on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, there was no misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of Amador Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other co-owners, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.
Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and presented the certificate issued by the barangay captain showing that there was no record of his attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the barangay. He, however, did not deny that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the execution and notarization of the SPA, he argued that in the same SPA, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were signed by or represented by Remedios Perez. He further insisted that in the acknowledgment portion of the SPA, the names of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were not included as among the parties who have personally appeared before him. Thus, Atty. Resuena insisted that there was no misrepresentation done in the notarization of the SPA.
Issue:
WON respondent violated the notarial law?
Held:
The SC have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SPA was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit that may arise out of their properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two were already dead at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of the SPA. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was likewise allowed to sign on behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad. Worse, he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case that was filed in court. In effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios' representation of four of the six principals of the SPA, doing away with the actual physical appearance of all the parties. There is no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial law, he also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.
Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. More so, in this case, where Atty. Resuena being the counsel of the plaintiffs-affiants can be assumed to have known the circumstances of the subject case, as well as the fact that affiants Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the execution of the subject SPA. Having appeared to have intentionally violated the notarial law, Atty. Resuena has, in fact, allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud which this Court will not tolerate.
Through his acts, Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of the fundamental obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon an honorable profession.
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.
Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo Perez was made to appear as attorney-in-fact of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law.
Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed the SPA on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, there was no misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of Amador Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other co-owners, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.
Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and presented the certificate issued by the barangay captain showing that there was no record of his attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the barangay. He, however, did not deny that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the execution and notarization of the SPA, he argued that in the same SPA, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were signed by or represented by Remedios Perez. He further insisted that in the acknowledgment portion of the SPA, the names of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were not included as among the parties who have personally appeared before him. Thus, Atty. Resuena insisted that there was no misrepresentation done in the notarization of the SPA.
Issue:
WON respondent violated the notarial law?
Held:
The SC have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SPA was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit that may arise out of their properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two were already dead at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of the SPA. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was likewise allowed to sign on behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad. Worse, he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case that was filed in court. In effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios' representation of four of the six principals of the SPA, doing away with the actual physical appearance of all the parties. There is no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial law, he also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.
Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. More so, in this case, where Atty. Resuena being the counsel of the plaintiffs-affiants can be assumed to have known the circumstances of the subject case, as well as the fact that affiants Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the execution of the subject SPA. Having appeared to have intentionally violated the notarial law, Atty. Resuena has, in fact, allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud which this Court will not tolerate.
Through his acts, Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of the fundamental obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon an honorable profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment