The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that an attorney who notarizes a falsified document is guilty of grave misconduct and must be disbarred from the practice of law. This decision underscores the severe responsibility placed on notaries public, especially lawyers, to ensure the authenticity of documents they certify. The ruling serves as a stern warning that lawyers who engage in deceitful acts undermine the integrity of the legal profession and will face the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

When a Notary’s Oath Becomes a Breach of Trust: A Case of Forged Donations

This case revolves around a deed of donation involving a parcel of land in Pasig. The complainant, Violeta Flores Alitagtag, filed a disbarment petition against Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia, alleging that he falsified and notarized a deed of donation. The central issue emerged when the signature of the donor, Cesar B. Flores, was found to be forged by the PNP Crime Laboratory. Atty. Garcia, as the notary public, had certified that Cesar Flores personally appeared before him and acknowledged the deed as his free act. However, the forensic evidence proved otherwise, raising questions about Atty. Garcia’s role and integrity in the transaction.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found that Atty. Garcia was indeed connected to the parties involved. The donor was his father-in-law, the donee was his brother-in-law, and his wife was the illegitimate daughter of the donor. Moreover, Atty. Garcia was later appointed as the attorney-in-fact of the donee, giving him broad powers to administer and sell the property. This close relationship cast a shadow of doubt on his impartiality as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors initially recommended a two-year suspension, but the Supreme Court deemed this penalty insufficient given the gravity of the offense.

The Supreme Court emphasized the critical role of a notary public, particularly when that notary is a lawyer. According to Act 2103, Section 1, a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to them and that the person executed the document as their own free act. In this case, Atty. Garcia failed to uphold this duty. He submitted that the deed was authentic and that his father-in-law executed it. By notarizing the document, he essentially vouched for the authenticity of the signature. However, the evidence showed that the signature was not genuine, directly contradicting Atty. Garcia’s certification.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Atty. Garcia failed to submit a copy of the notarized deed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, as required. His explanation, blaming his secretary or his father-in-law, was deemed trivial and unacceptable. The Court stressed that as a notary public, he is personally responsible for keeping a copy of the documents he notarizes and cannot delegate this duty to others. This failure further highlighted his negligence and disregard for his notarial duties. The court stated, “Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.”

Atty. Garcia’s actions were not only a violation of his notarial duties but also a breach of his oath as a lawyer. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. By notarizing a falsified document and attempting to profit from it through his appointment as attorney-in-fact, Atty. Garcia demonstrated a clear intent to deceive and prejudice others. The court found that his actions caused dishonor to the legal profession and warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Garcia’s misconduct was grave and rendered him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. The Court explicitly pointed out that the act of acknowledging a forged document destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The totality of his actions, from notarizing the forged document to his attempts to benefit from it, painted a picture of an attorney who had compromised his ethical obligations for personal gain. The Supreme Court decided that he did not deserve to remain a member of the bar.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia should be disbarred for notarizing a deed of donation containing a forged signature. The Supreme Court assessed his conduct in light of his duties as a notary public and his oath as a lawyer.
What evidence proved the document was forged?	The PNP Crime Laboratory conducted a forensic examination of the signature on the deed of donation and compared it to known samples of Cesar B. Flores’ signature. The report concluded that the signatures were not written by the same person.
What was Atty. Garcia’s relationship to the parties involved?	Atty. Garcia was the son-in-law of the alleged donor, Cesar B. Flores, and the brother-in-law of the donee, Gregorio Gamad Flores. His wife was the illegitimate daughter of the donor. He was also later appointed as the attorney-in-fact of the donee.
Why did the Supreme Court impose disbarment instead of suspension?	The Supreme Court found that Atty. Garcia’s misconduct was grave and demonstrated a clear intent to deceive and profit from the falsified document. Disbarment was deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the legal profession.
What are the duties of a notary public in the Philippines?	A notary public must certify that the person acknowledging a document is known to them and that they executed it voluntarily. They are also required to keep a copy of the notarized document and submit it to the Office of the Clerk of Court.
What is the significance of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. This rule underscores the ethical obligations of lawyers to maintain the highest standards of integrity and honesty in their professional dealings.
What are the possible consequences for a lawyer who notarizes a forged document?	A lawyer who notarizes a forged document may face disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment from the practice of law. They may also be subject to criminal prosecution for falsification or other related offenses.
What message does this case send to other lawyers and notaries public?	This case serves as a warning that the Supreme Court takes seriously the duties of a notary public and the ethical obligations of lawyers. Lawyers must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity, and any act of deceit or dishonesty will be met with severe consequences.

This case serves as a stark reminder to attorneys about the weight of their responsibilities, especially when acting as notaries public. The integrity of the legal system relies heavily on the honesty and diligence of its members. Failure to uphold these standards can lead to severe repercussions, including disbarment.

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: VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG VS. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA, A.C. No. 4738, February 06, 2002