THIRD DIVISION
MA.
CORAZON D.
FULGENCIO,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
3223
May 29, 2003 -versus-
ATTY.
BIENVENIDO
G. MARTIN,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
In a complaint[1]
dated May 9, 1988 which was received by this Court on May 20, 1988,
complainant
Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio seeks the imposition of disciplinary measures
against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin (respondent) for falsifying and
notarizing
two documents of sale purportedly executed by her husband Kua Se Beng
(Kua).
On June 1, 1983, in
Isabela, Basilan, respondent, a notary public, notarized two documents,
a Deed of Absolute Sale[2]
over a parcel of land and a Bill of Sale[3]
over a Toyota sedan, both purportedly executed by Kua.cralaw:red
Complainant alleges
that the two documents could not have been executed and notarized in
Basilan
by her husband Kua who later died on July 5, 1983 because he was, on
June
1, 1983, confined at the Makati Medical Center as evidenced by the
Admission
and Discharge Record of the hospital[4]
and the certification of the attending doctor[5]
showing his hospital confinement from May 30 to June 30, 1983.[6]
And she denies having given her consent to, and affixed her signature
on,
the first document.cralaw:red
Complainant further
alleges that as a result of the execution and notarization of the
deeds,
title to the parcel of land was transferred to Chua Kim & Sons
Trading
Company, Inc. while ownership of the Toyota sedan was transferred to
one
Wat Hua C. Ostrea.[7]
Additionally, complainant
alleges that respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Basilan,
Branch I in Special Proceedings No. 66, In re: Petition for
Guardianship
of the minors Michaelle Bengson, Candice Lovella and Richard Bengson
all
surnamed Kua, a document entitled "Inventory and Appraisal"[8]
without her knowledge and consent as guardian of the minors, which
document
"contains wrong and untrue information/data."[9]chanrobles virtual law library
In his Comment,[10]
respondent admits that he prepared and notarized the questioned Deed of
Absolute Sale and Bill of Sale without the vendor Kua personally
appearing
before him. He asserts, however, that he prepared and notarized
the
deeds upon the express request of Kua whom he considered as a trusted
friend[11]
under the following circumstances:
On May 28, 1983, a few
hours before Kua Se Beng and complainant left Isabela, Basilan, bound
for
Manila, Kua Se Beng instructed respondent to draw up the necessary deed
of conveyance involving property described in Original Certificate of
Title
No. P-3178 for a sum of P87,000.00 in favor of Chua Kim and Sons
Trading
Co., Inc. and another deed of conveyance for a sum of P15,000.00
involving
one (1) unit Toyota motor vehicle in favor of his sister, Wat Hua C.
Ostrea.
since Kua Se Beng and complainant were about to leave Isabela, Basilan
on said date and there was not enough time to prepare the instruments
in
due form for Kua Se Beng’s signature, and the purpose of said
conveyances
were in payment of Kua Se Beng’s advances from the family corporation,
responsdent was personally instructed by complainant’s husband to send
the deeds of conveyances to Manila through his mother, Mrs. Suy Dian
Chua,
for Kua Se Beng’s signature, who was scheduled to leave for manila
shortly
after kua se beng’s and complainant’s departure from Isabela, Basilan.
ON THE BASIS OF THE
REPRESENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT FROM KUA SE BENG
THE CONTESTED DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED AND WERE HANDED TO KUA SE BENG’S
MOTHER WHO LEFT ISABELA, BASILAN FOR MANILA ON JUNE 1, 1983.[12](Emphasis supplied)
Respondent likewise
asserts that Kua’s and complainant’s signatures appearing on the first
deed and that of Kua on the second are genuine, he (respondent) being
"acquainted
with their signatures on account of [his] long years of lawyering" for
Kua and their family corporation.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
As to the charge that
he filed an "Inventory and Appraisal" that contained "wrong and untrue
information," respondent declares:
RESPONDENT..DENIES
THE ALLEGATION THAT SAID INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL CONTAINS WRONG AND
UNTRUE
INFORMATION, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER BEING THAT THE INFORMATION AND
DATA
CONTAINED THEREIN WERE LIFTED FROM DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF
RESPONDENT
WHO ACTED AS COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 66
RESPONDENT,
HOWEVER,
DID NOT KNOW OF COMPLAINANT’S SERIOUS OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT’S FILING
OF THE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL DATED MARCH 14, 1988DESPITE THE
ISSUANCE
OF LETTERS OF GUARDIANSHIP TO COMPLAINANT AS EARLY AS MARCH 5, 1987.[14]
The complaint was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation
and recommendation by this Court’s Resolution of August 29, 1988.[15]
In her October 2, 2001
Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the IBP
Commission
on Bar Discipline, while noting that complainant failed to prove that
Kua’s
and complainant’s signatures on the documents were forged, nevertheless
recommended that respondent be faulted for violation of the notarial
law
which enjoins that no notary shall do any notarial act beyond the
limits
of his jurisdiction.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
On August 5, 2002, the
IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XV-2002-231,[17]
adopting, with modification, the Report and Recommendation[18]
of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) which was found to be
supported
by evidence and applicable laws and rules, recommended as follows:
[C]onsidering that the
notarial law requires that no notary shall possess authority to do any
notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction, and that] the
documents
were not signed and personally verified before respondent as required
by
the Notarial law, Respondent’s Commission as Notary Public is hereby
SUSPENDED.
He is likewise DISQUALIFIED for appointment as Notary Public for two
(2)
years from receipt of notice.[19]
(Emphasis supplied)
The Resolution of the
IBP Board of Governors is well-taken.cralaw:red
Admittedly, Kua did
not appear before respondent when he notarized the deeds in Basilan as
he was then in Makati. Respondent, however, stated in the
Acknowledgement
portion of each of the documents that Kua, "[o]n [the] first day of
June
1983, personally appeared before [him]..known to [him] and to [him]
known to be the same person who signed and executed the foregoing
instrument
and acknowledged..to him that the same is his free and voluntary
act."[20]
He thus made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he
shall
not do any falsehood.[21]
Respondent likewise
failed to observe with utmost care a basic requirement in the
performance
of his duty as a notary public.chanrobles virtual law library
The importance attached
to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Notarization
is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.chanrobles virtual law library
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.[22]
(Citations omitted, Emphasis and underlining supplied)
As a lawyer commissioned
as a 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 for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or
jurat
is sacrosanct and, failing therein, he must bear the commensurate
consequences.[23]
More, respondent breached
the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond
the
limits of his jurisdiction.[24]
As to the charge that
respondent filed in court, without the knowledge and consent of herein
complainant, an "Inventory and Appraisal" which contained "untrue
information,"
the same is bereft of proof.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, for breach
of the notarial law, the commission of respondent Atty. Bienvenido G.
Martin
as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as such for a period of Two (2) Years.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent Atty. Bienvenido
G. Martin is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
Six
(6) Months effective immediately for violation of Rule 10.01 of the
Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is DIRECTED to report to this
Court the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable it to
determine
when the revocation of his notarial commission and his disqualification
from being commissioned as notary public as well as when his suspension
from the practice of law shall have taken effect.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Acting C.J., (Chairman),
and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 70-82.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Id. at 76.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 78; Entered as Document No. 399 on Page 78 of Book XVIII, Series
of 1983.
[4]
Rollo at 75.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 74.
[6]
Id. at 70.
[7]
Id. at 71.
[8]
Id. at 81-82.
[9]
Id. at 71.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Id. at 1-9.
[11]
Id. at 4, 6.
[12]
Id. at 4-5.
[13]
Id. at 5-6.
[14]
Id. at 6-7.
[15]
Id. at 87.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Id. at 238-239.
[17]
Id. at 230-240.
[18]
Id. at 233-240.
[19]
Id. at 231.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Id. at 76, 78.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Gonzaga v. Realubin, 242 SCRA 322 (1995).chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Vda. De Rosales v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002.
[23]
Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 414 (1997).
[24]
Sec. 240, Act 2103. |