THIRD
DIVISION
PIKE P.
ARRIETA,
Complainant,
A. C. No. 4369
November 28, 1997
-versus-
ATTY.
JOEL A. LLOSA,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U T I O N
ROMERO, J.:
Complainant
Pike P. Arrieta prays for the disbarment
of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute
Sale.
Particularly, complainant avers that respondent notarized a Deed of
Absolute
Sale dated March 24, 1993[1]
making it appear that some of the vendors in said Deed namely:
Edelina
T. Bonilla, Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano were parties and
signatories thereto when in truth and in fact, all three were already
dead
prior to the execution of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. Jesus T.
Bonilla
died on August 22, 1992[2]
while Leonardo P. Toledano died on November 1, 1992.[3]
Edelina T. Bonilla allegedly died on or about June 11, 1992.
In answer,
respondent admitted having notarized
the Deed of Absolute Sale. But before affixing his notarial seal, he
first
ascertained the authenticity of the signatures, verified the identities
of the signatories, and determined the voluntariness of its execution.
Satisfied with all of the above, it was only then that he certified the
document. Curiously, on September 9, 1996, complainant had a
complete
turn-around and moved for the dismissal of his complaint. He alleged
that
the instant case is only a product of misunderstanding and
misinterpretation
of some facts and is now convinced that everything is in order.cralaw:red
The designated
Investigating Commissioner of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended the dismissal of the
instant
case. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
adopted
the above recommendation and resolved to dismiss the instant case after
finding no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment
proceedings.cralaw:red
This Court cannot
agree.cralaw:red
Sec. 1 of Public
Act No. 2103 provides:
[a] The acknowledgment shall be made
before a
notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to
take
acknowledgment 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 acknowledged
that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under
his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
his certificate shall so state.
It is, thus,
clear from the foregoing that the party
acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any person
authorized
to take acknowledgment of instruments or documents.[4]
Aside from being required to appear before the Notary Public, it is
similarly
incumbent upon the person acknowledging the instrument to declare
before
the same Notary Public that the execution of the instrument was done by
him of his own free will.
In the
Acknowledgment of the Deed of Sale, respondent
certified: "BEFORE ME, this 24th day of March, 1993 at Dumaguete City,
Philippines, personally appeared Jesus Bonilla; Leonardo Toledano;"[5]
Respondent claims that as a Notary Public, he asked the signatories
whether
the signatures appearing above their respective names were theirs, and
whether they voluntarily executed the Deed of Absolute Sale. In order
to
ascertain their identities, respondent asked for their respective
residence
certificates.cralaw:red
Except for
Edelina T. Bonilla whose alleged death
was not evidenced by a death certificate, respondent certified in the
acknowledgment
that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano personally appeared
before
him. Respondent's acts require the presence of the vendors to be able
to
verify the authenticity of their signatures, the identities of the
signatories
and the voluntariness of the execution of the Deed. It defies
imagination
and belief how these could have happened. It would have been
impossible,
both physically and legally, for Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P.
Toledano
to have personally subscribed and sworn before respondent as to the
authenticity
and validity of the Deed of Sale as they had already passed on to the
Great
Beyond prior to the execution of the said documents.cralaw:red
Yet, respondent
certified to this effect. By affixing
his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from being a private document into a public document. By
certifying
the Deed, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world: [1] that all
the parties therein personally appeared before him; [2] that they are
all
personally known to him; [3] that they were the same persons who
executed
the instruments; (4) that he inquired into the voluntariness of
execution
of the instrument; and [5] they acknowledged personally before him that
they voluntarily and freely executed the same.cralaw:red
Notarization is
not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantial public interest,
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries
public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a
public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity.[6]
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its
face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the 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.[7]
As a lawyer
commissioned to be a notary public,
respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties which are
dictated
by public policy and, as such, impressed with public interest. Faithful
observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment
or jurat is sacrosanct.[8]
It is for the above reason that this Court is
most concerned about the explanation given by complainant for
withdrawing
his complaint against respondent. In his Motion to Dismiss dated
September
9, 1996, complainant declares:
xxx xxx xxx
That he is now fully convinced that
everything
was in order, and that nobody was ever prejudiced by the acts of the
respondent.
Herein complainant has realized that he himself, or any other legal
practitioner,
would have done similarly as the respondent, if confronted with such an
urgent voluntary transaction in an emergency situation;
That respondent
acted the way he did because he was
confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all. As an
individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is
required to obey the laws of the land ar all times, to refrain from
engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct at all times, to
uphold
the integrity of his profession at all times, to promote respect to his
profession at all times, and to act with justice at all times.
It is dismaying
to note how respondent so cavalierly
disregarded the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law simply
to accommodate his clients. Not only did he commit an illegal act but
also
did so without thinking of the possible damage or prejudice that might
result from non-observance of the same.cralaw:red
As a lawyer,
respondent breached his professional
responsibility by certifying under oath an instrument fully knowing
that
some of the signatories thereto were long dead. This Court cannot
countenance
this practice, especially coming, as it does, from respondent who
formerly
served as president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Negros
Oriental
Chapter, President of the Dumaguete Lions Club and City Councilor of
Dumaguete.
If, indeed respondent had taken steps to verify the identities of the
signatories,
he would have easily known that the signatures were fake as they
purported
to be those of his former clients.cralaw:red
It is worth
stressing that the practice of law
is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required
by law for the conferment of such privilege.[9]
[M]embership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. There
being no lifetime guaranty, a lawyer has the privilege and right to
practice
law only during good behavior and can be deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to
be heard has been afforded him.[10]
Pursuant to the
foregoing, it is primarily required
of lawyers to obey the Constitution and laws of the land.[11]
They must refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful
conduct.[12]
An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for
any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and
counsellor,
which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the
Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically
any
misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[13]
Respondent's act
of certifying under oath a Deed
of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were already dead,
they
being his former clients, constitutes misconduct. But this being his
first
administrative offense, such should no warrant the supreme penalty of
disbarment.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, this
Court finds respondent Atty.
Joel A. Llosa guilty of misconduct. Consequently, he is ordered
SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six [6] months effective immediately, with
a warning that another infraction would be dealt with more severely.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
himself.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Melo, Francisco and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
__________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Deed of Absolute Sale, Annex "C", Rollo, p. 11.
[2]
Certificate of Death of Jesus Jose Bonilla issued by Local Civil
Registrar,
Cebu City, Annex "A", Rollo, p. 9.
[3]
Certificate of Death of Leonardo Toledano issued by Local Civil
Registrar,
City of Manila, Annex "B", Rollo, p. 10.
[4]
Jamildo v. New Bilibid Prisons [NBP] Officials, 242 SCRA 87 [1995].
[5]
"An Act Providing for the Acknowledgment and Authentication of
Instruments
and Documents Without the Philippine Islands" enacted January 26, 1912.
[6]
Romana R. Maligsa, v. Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May
14,
1997.
[7]
Ramirez v. Ner, 21 SCRA 207 [1967].
[8]
See Note 6.
[9]
Bongalonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 313 [1995].
[10]
Marcelo v. Javier, 214 SCRA 13 [1992].
[11]
Canon I, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[12]
Rule 1, supra.
[13]
Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1 [1992]. |