ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.C. No. CBD 98-548.December 12, 2001]

ROSITA INGUSAN AND PASCUAL INGUSAN vs. ATTY. BAUTISTA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2001.

A.C. No. CBD 98-548 (Rosita Ingusan and Pascual Ingusan vs. Atty. Reynaldo T. Bautista.)

Rosita Ingusan 1 Pascual Ingusan, Rosita's husband, was later admitted as co-complainant in the Order dated 11 September 1998 of IBP Investigating Commissioner Ma. Carmina Alejandro-Abbas; Rollo, Vol. I, p. 44. filed this administrative case on 28 April 1998 with the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for Falsification of Public Document, Perjury and Dishonesty against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Bautista. 2 Docketed as CBD Case No. 98-548. Specifically, complainant alleged that Atty. Bautista in bad faith and for his own material benefit prepared a fake Deed of Mortgage dated 26 August 1993 purportedly executed by her in favor of Bernabe Angeles whereby she allegedly mortgaged with her husband's marital consent her lot in Morong, Rizal, covered by TCT No. M-18076 for P50,000.00; that her signature and that of her husband appearing in the Deed of Mortgage were forged; and, that respondent nevertheless certified in the notarial acknowledgment as follows -

BEFORE ME, a NOTARY PUBLIC x x x personally appeared ROSITA INGUSAN with Res. Cert. No. 19057855 issued on August 5, 1993 at Marikina, known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is her voluntary act and deed x x x x

In his Answer dated 15 July 1998 respondent vehemently denied the accusations leveled against him. Respondent alleged that he notarized the Deed of Mortgage in the presence of persons who represented themselves as complainant spouses; that he had neither inkling nor suspicion that the couple were impostors considering that they had with them the owner's duplicate' copy of TCT No. M-18076; 3 See Counter-Affidavit marked as Annex "3" and made an integral part of respondent's Answer; Id., p. 17. and, that a criminal complaint for falsification of public document, perjury and dishonesty alleging the same facts filed by complainant spouses with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig 4 In I.S. Nos. PSG (4) 98-5908 and 98-5909. was dismissed on 22 June 1998 on the ground that there existed "no sufficient ground [to] support a well-founded belief that the respondent committed falsification of a public document, perjured, or could have been dishonest in the discharge of its duties as a Notary Public. 5 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 22-23.

During the hearings conducted by the IBP, the parties agreed on the following stipulation of facts: (a) that the persons who appeared before respondent as Rosita and Pascual Ingusan were impostors; (b) that they were introduced to respondent as the complainant spouses by the mortgagee Bernabe Angeles whom respondent personally knew being a previous client; 6 TSN, 9 February 2000, p. 5. (c) that the impostors brought with them the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. M-18076 which they presented together with a Community Tax Certificate purporting to be that of Rosita; and, (d) that complainant Rosita Ingusan had previously entrusted the duplicate copy of TCT No. M-18076 to her friend Rebecca Mapa for the purpose of looking for a prospective mortgagee. 7 TSN, 26 January 1999, pp. 10 and 14. The physical presence of the alleged mortgagor and her husband during notarization was thus duly admitted, hence, issue was limited to whether respondent was negligent in his duty as notary public of ascertaining the true identities of the persons before him.

In her Report dated 2 February 2001 IBP Investigating Commissioner Ma. Carmina A. Abbas found respondent negligent in failing to ascertain the true identities of the persons who appeared before him as Rosita and Pascual Ingusan. Respondent was upbraided for relying merely on the mortgagee's assurance as to their identities and for accepting as proof thereof the community tax certificate presented to him considering that such certificates are unreliable in proving identity conclusively. The fact however that the impostors managed to present the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. M-18076 was considered as a mitigating factor in favor of respondent. Commissioner Abbas thus recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of six (6) months' suspension from the practice of law.

The IBP Board of Governors did not agree with the recommended penalty. In its Resolution No. XIV-2001-185 dated 29 April 2001 now submitted before us, the penalty of six (6) months suspension was reduced to a mere admonition enjoining respondent "to exercise more care in notarizing documents in the future." 8 Resolution No. XIV-2001-185 dated 29 April 2001.

We agree with the IBP Board of Governors. In In Re: Manigbas 9 Adm. Case No. 501, 26 October 1968, 25 SCRA 590, 592. where we found respondent similarly negligent in exercising care in the performance of his duties as notary public, a mere warning to be more careful in the future performance of his duties sufficed. While herein respondent cannot be held liable for falsification, perjury and dishonesty as charged, he is nevertheless liable for failing to require acceptable forms of identification from the couple who appeared before him to ascertain their identities. He should not have relied merely on the TCT and community tax certificate presented to him since the former merely shows title to property and does not prove the presentor's identity, while the latter by its very nature cannot be relied upon for the purpose. The fact that the mortgagee whom respondent personally knew (but who turned out to have been duped as well) introduced the spouses is no excuse for respondent not to have required acceptable forms of identification. As Commissioner Abbas succinctly puts it, the duty of ascertaining the identities of persons appearing before him is a duty personal to a notary public which cannot be abdicated to third parties. It must be discharged personally and with due diligence. Besides, prior acquaintance and friendship are no excuse for non�compliance with a notary public's duty. 10 Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials, G.R. No. 114829, 1 March 1995, 242 SCRA 83, 87.

WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XIV-2001-185 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors dismissing the charges of falsification, perjury and dishonesty against respondent ATTY. REYNALDO T. BAUTISTA, advising him however to exercise more care in notarizing documents in the future, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com