The Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s failure to properly verify the identity of a person appearing before them to notarize a document constitutes negligence and a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision reinforces the importance of a notary public’s duty to ensure the authenticity of documents, safeguarding the public’s trust in the legal system. This ruling clarifies the extent of a lawyer’s liability when notarizing documents without proper verification, setting a precedent for disciplinary actions against negligent notaries.
Deceptive Deeds: When a Notary’s Negligence Enables Post-Mortem Property Transfers
This case revolves around a complaint filed by Zenaida Gonzales Serzo against Atty. Romeo M. Flores, who notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 28, 2000. The deed purportedly transferred a 7,500 square meter parcel of land in Cardona, Rizal, from Neybardo Gonzales y Villaluna to Yolanda dela Cruz. However, Gonzales had passed away on October 16, 2000, prior to the deed’s supposed execution. Adding to the irregularity, the deed included a supposed marital consent by Gonzales’ wife, Maura Villarina, who had also passed away long before the deed was allegedly executed. This questionable document led to a criminal charge for falsification of public document against complainant’s sister, Amelia Gonzales Laureno, who signed as “AGLaureno” on behalf of their deceased mother.
Atty. Flores admitted to notarizing the document, but offered a defense of mistaken identity. He claimed that while the vendee, Yolanda dela Cruz, was known to his office, the vendor’s identity might have been misrepresented. He asserted that his usual practice involves verifying the identities of parties to contracts. However, he also stated that he could not recall the specifics of this transaction because the parties were unfamiliar to him and the notarization occurred almost two years prior. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Flores guilty of negligence. The IBP noted that Atty. Flores had notarized previous documents for the deceased Gonzales, contradicting his claim of unfamiliarity. This prior knowledge made his failure to identify the imposter particularly egregious.
The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding, emphasizing the gravity of a notary public’s responsibilities. The court underscored that notarization is not a mere formality, but a process imbued with public interest, demanding utmost care and diligence. Atty. Flores’ negligence undermined the public’s confidence in notarial documents and violated Canon 1 of the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, which mandates lawyers to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes. Rule 1.01 of the Code further prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
The court highlighted that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories are the very individuals who executed it and personally appeared before them. By notarizing a deed purportedly signed by a deceased person, Atty. Flores failed to uphold this fundamental principle. The Supreme Court cited Fulgencio v. Martin, 403 SCRA 216, 220-221 (2003), stressing that undermining the integrity of conveyances erodes public trust. In light of these violations, the Supreme Court revoked Atty. Flores’ notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for two years.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Romeo M. Flores was negligent in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly signed by a deceased person, thereby violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. |
| What was Atty. Flores’ defense? | Atty. Flores claimed that the vendor’s identity was misrepresented, and he might have been confused by someone impersonating the deceased Gonzales. He also argued that he could not recall the details due to the passage of time. |
| How did the IBP rule in this case? | The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Flores guilty of negligence for failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him, considering his prior dealings with the deceased Gonzales. |
| What did the Supreme Court decide? | The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding, revoking Atty. Flores’ notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for two years. |
| What is the significance of notarization? | Notarization is a process imbued with public interest, requiring notaries public to exercise utmost care in verifying the identities of signatories to ensure the authenticity of documents. |
| What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Flores violate? | Atty. Flores violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes, and Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. |
| What is the practical implication of this ruling? | The ruling reinforces the importance of due diligence by notaries public in verifying identities and ensures that lawyers are held accountable for negligence in their notarial functions. |
| What standard of care is expected of notaries public? | Notaries public are expected to ensure that the persons who signed a document are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before them to attest to its contents and truth. |
This case underscores the critical role of notaries public in maintaining the integrity of legal documents. By holding Atty. Flores accountable for his negligence, the Supreme Court reaffirms the high standard of care required of legal professionals. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to all notaries public to diligently verify the identities of individuals appearing before them, ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of notarized documents and preserving public trust in the legal system.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ZENAIDA GONZALES SERZO VS. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, A.C. No. 6040, July 30, 2004
Leave a Reply