EN
BANC
ROMANA R.
MALIGSA,
Complainant,
A. C. No. 4539
May 14, 1997
-versus-
ATTY.
ARSENIO FER CABANTING,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Atty. Arsenion
Fer Cabanting is charged by Romana
R. Maligsa in a verified affidavit-complaint for disbarment with
conduct
unbecoming a lawyer for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim dated
5 May 1992[1]
over a piece of property subject of a pending civil case before the
Regional
Trial Court, Branch 45, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, docketed as Civil
Case
No. U-5434.[2]
On 11 March 1996,
We required respondent to comment
on the complaint. He failed to comply despite service upon him of our
Resolution
together with copy of the complaint.cralaw:red
On 22 October
1996, We considered the failure
of respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting to file his comment as waiver
of his right to do so and directed the case submitted for decision.cralaw:red
On the basis of
the complaint and the supporting
documents, this Court finds sufficient legal basis for disciplinary
action
against respondent for making it appear in the Acknowledgment of the
Deed
of Quitclaim, a question that the affiant therein signed the document
and
acknowledged the contents thereof before him as Notary Public on 5 May
1992, when in truth and in fact the affiant did not and could not have
done so.cralaw:red
The evidence
clearly discloses that on 5 May 1992,
a Deed of Quitclaim was purportedly executed by one, Irene Maliga, in
favor
of Juanito V. Abaoag over a parcel of land located in Cablong,
Pozorrubio,
Pangasinan.[3]
The subject document was notarized by respondent on the same date. The
document was apparently used as evidence against complainant in a
pending
civil case for annulment of OCT No. P-31297, quieting of title with
prayer
for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining
order plus damages.cralaw:red
The complainant
alleges that the Deed of Quitclaim
could not have been executed and notarized on 5 May 1992 because the
affiant
Irene Maligsa died on 21 April 1992 or sixteen [16] days earlier.[4]
Moreover, Irene Maligsa could not have signed the document because she
"never knew how to write as she uses the thumb mark in every
transaction
she entered."[5]
Section 1 of
Public Act No. 2103[6]
provides:
[a] The acknowledgment shall be made
before a
notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to
take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act
is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment
shall
certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is
known
to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and
acknowledgment,
that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under
the official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
his certificate shall so state.
Furthermore,
the Acknowledgment contained in the
questioned document specifically provides "BEFORE ME personally
appeared
IRENE MALIGSA"[7]
Clearly, the party acknowledging must personally appear before the
Notary
Public or any other person authorized to take such acknowledgment of
instruments
or documents.
In the case
before Us, it would have been physically
and legally impossible for the affiant Irene Maligsa to have executed
the
alleged Deed of Quitclaim on 5 May 1992 and to have personally
subscribed
to its authenticity and validity before respondent notary public on the
same date, affiant having died on 21 April 1992. Also, it behooves
respondent
as a notary public to require the personal appearance of the person
executing
a document to enable the former to verify the genuineness of the
signature
of the affiant.cralaw:red
Quite
importantly, this is not the first time
that respondent has been involved in an act of malpractice in violation
of his oath as a lawyer and the Canons of Professional Ethics.cralaw:red
In the
consolidated administrative cases of Valencia
v. Cabanting,[8]
the Court suspended respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting for six [6]
months from the practice of law. In those cases, respondent purchased
his
client's property which was still the subject of a pending certiorari
proceeding
contrary to the prohibition stated in Art. 1491 of the New Civil Code
and
Art. II of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Under the circumstances,
a recollection of the basic principles of professional ethics in the
practice
of law is apropos.cralaw:red
A lawyer shall at
all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high
standard
of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A
lawyer
brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties
to society, to the bar, to the court and to his clients. To this end a
member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the
public
in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.[9]
Notarization is
not an empty routine; to the contrary,
it engages public interest in a substantial degree and protection of
the
interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized
to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts
and the administrative offices generally.[10]
Notarization of a
private document converts the
document into a public one making it admissible in court without
further
proof of its authenticity.cralaw:red
As a lawyer
commissioned as notary public, respondent
is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his
office,
such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an
oath
in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such
responsibility
is incumbent upon respondent and failing therein, he must now accept
the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. By his
effrontery
of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a mockery
of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.cralaw:red
A lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows
him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor
or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[11]
Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of
his
prior misconduct hereinbefore mentioned for which he was penalized with
a six [6] month suspension from the practice of law, with a warning
that
repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more
severely,
the contumacious behavior of respondent in the instant case which
grossly
degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much
graver penalty.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, the
Court finds respondent ATTY.
ARSENIO FER CABANTING guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy
of his continued membership in the legal profession; consequently, he
is
ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
the
Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.cralaw:red
Let copies of
this Resolution be furnished all
the courts of the land as well as the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,
the Office of the Bar Confidant and recorded in the personal files of
respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco,
Hermosisima,
Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ. concur.
Padilla, J.,
is on leave.
____________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Purportedly executed by Irene Maligsa, Annex "A," Records.
[2]
Affidavit-Complaint, p. 2, Records.
[3]
Deed of Quitclaim was allegedly executed for and in consideration of
one
(1) peso.
[4]
Certificate of Death of Irene Maligsa Cariaso issued by Local Civil
Registrar,
City of Manila, Annex "B-2," Records.
[5]
Deed of Absolute Sale dated 3 July 1985 in favor of Romana Maligsa,
Annex
"C," Records.
[6]
"An Act Providing for the Acknowledgment and Authentication of
Instruments
and Documents Without the Philippines Islands," enacted 26 January 1912.
[7]
See Note 1.
[8]
Paulino Valencia v. Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting; Constancia L. Valencia
v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, Atty. Eduardo U. Jovellanos and Atty.
Arsenio
Fer Cabanting; Lydia Bernal v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, Adm. Cases
Nos.
1302, 1391 and 1543, 26 April 1991, 196 SCRA 302.
[9]
Marcelo v. Atty. Adriano S. Javier Sr., Adm. Case No. 3248, 18
September
1992, 214 SCRA 1.
[10]
Joson v. Atty. Gloria M. Baltazar, Adm. Case No. 575, 14 February 1991,
194 SCRA 114; Nadayag v. Atty. Jose A. Grageda, Adm. Case No. 3232, 27
September 1994, 237 SCRA 202.
[11]
See Note 8. |