A.C. No. 5426 April 3, 2007
CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. JANUARIO C. FLORES, Respondent.
The instant administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by Chita Pantoja-Mumar charging respondent Atty.Januario C. Flores with fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty and violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Complainant is one of the compulsory heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr. It appears that respondent had prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale for her and 11 other co-heirs covering a three-hectare property in Pangdan, Cambanay,Danao City. The deed was executed in favor of the spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who were later able to secure a torrens title over the property under their names.
In the verified Complaint, complainant alleged that respondent had prepared the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1987, but averred that the transaction did not push through, and the deed was not notarized.
The Investigating Commissioner found that while the validity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale is yet to be resolved in the civil case, the acts and omissions of respondent as notary public have been duly established. According to the Investigating Commissioner:
1. The document, although already signed by some of the co-heirs/co-owners on or before December 29, 1987, was not finalized because the transaction was not pursued; however, the date of notarization was indicated therein to be December 29, 1987;
2. Respondent notarized the document on or after June 13, 1988, without the authority and/or in the absence of some of the supposed signatories;
3. Respondent did not see one of the co-heirs, Maximina Pantoja, actually affix her thumbmark to the document; and
4. Respondent notarized the document even if Complainant, also a co-heir, did not sign it.
The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that these acts and omissions were established through respondents own admission that he notarized the document even if Maximina Pantoja did not affix her thumbmark in his presence, and that complainant did not appear before him to sign the deed. The Investigating Commissioner also considered respondents testimony in Civil Case No. DNA-574. Citing Gonzales v. Ramos, Commissioner Herbosa recommended that the notarial commission of respondent be revoked; and that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Issue: WON respondent violated the Notarial law and his lawyer’s oath?
Held:
It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities 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. A notary public is duty-bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, to swear before him that he is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the same.
Thus, in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that all the vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; he thereby breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired. Considering that this is the respondents first administrative offense, the Court modifies the IBPs recommendation of a two-year suspension from the practice of law to one year.
CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. JANUARIO C. FLORES, Respondent.
The instant administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by Chita Pantoja-Mumar charging respondent Atty.Januario C. Flores with fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty and violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Complainant is one of the compulsory heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr. It appears that respondent had prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale for her and 11 other co-heirs covering a three-hectare property in Pangdan, Cambanay,Danao City. The deed was executed in favor of the spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who were later able to secure a torrens title over the property under their names.
In the verified Complaint, complainant alleged that respondent had prepared the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1987, but averred that the transaction did not push through, and the deed was not notarized.
The Investigating Commissioner found that while the validity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale is yet to be resolved in the civil case, the acts and omissions of respondent as notary public have been duly established. According to the Investigating Commissioner:
1. The document, although already signed by some of the co-heirs/co-owners on or before December 29, 1987, was not finalized because the transaction was not pursued; however, the date of notarization was indicated therein to be December 29, 1987;
2. Respondent notarized the document on or after June 13, 1988, without the authority and/or in the absence of some of the supposed signatories;
3. Respondent did not see one of the co-heirs, Maximina Pantoja, actually affix her thumbmark to the document; and
4. Respondent notarized the document even if Complainant, also a co-heir, did not sign it.
The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that these acts and omissions were established through respondents own admission that he notarized the document even if Maximina Pantoja did not affix her thumbmark in his presence, and that complainant did not appear before him to sign the deed. The Investigating Commissioner also considered respondents testimony in Civil Case No. DNA-574. Citing Gonzales v. Ramos, Commissioner Herbosa recommended that the notarial commission of respondent be revoked; and that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Issue: WON respondent violated the Notarial law and his lawyer’s oath?
Held:
It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities 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. A notary public is duty-bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, to swear before him that he is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the same.
Thus, in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that all the vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; he thereby breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired. Considering that this is the respondents first administrative offense, the Court modifies the IBPs recommendation of a two-year suspension from the practice of law to one year.
