IN RE:  DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOTARY PUBLIC ATTY. ZACARIAS MANIGBAS, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Zacarias Manigbas,
a member of the bar, was charged with alleged acts of falsification in
violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in that in the jurat of certain documents, later introduced in evidence as
Exhs. D and E, he, as Notary Public, made it appear
that said documents were subscribed, sworn to and signed by Pablo de la Cruz
before him and in his presence, in Lucena city, when
in truth and in fact they were signed in Manila and not in his presence.  The matter having been referred to the office
of the Solicitor General for appropriate action, the corresponding
investigation was held, in the course of which said respondent was given ample
opportunity to defend himself.  Upon the
evidence presented thereat, the Solicitor General made the following findings:

“Respondent thus admitted that in the performance of his
duties as notary public of the Rural Bank of Lucena,
he had not exercised utmost care so as to make sure that the person presenting
the document for his signature as notary public was the same person who was
supposed to sign and subscribe the document before him, relying merely on the
assumption that the papers were in order because they were supposed to have
been duly processed by the bank manager who, he also presumed, had seen to it
that no defect existed in the pertinent documents and no irregularity had
been  committed in the preparation of the
loan papers.

“From the evidence, presented, there is no showing that
respondent was in league with the bank officers who may have perpetrated a
scheme in issuing fraudulent loans in violation of the charter of the Rural
Bank of Lucena so as to warrant the finding that he
had himself committed falsification.  His
participation in the accomplishment of the documents relative to the loan
supposedly applied for by Pablo de la Cruz which is that of merely notarizing
said documents is not inconsistent with lack of knowledge on his part of the
fraud which was apparently perpetrated by other parties so as to make him
equally liable or guilty of such fraud. 
His being a young lawyer would disincline us to believe that he could
have consciously lent himself as a tool in the perpetration of fraudulent loans
as the Lucena Rural Bank had been charged with.  At least the evidence fails to link respondent
to whatever fraudulent transactions may have been indulged in by the
Bank.”

As a result of the above findings, and considering all the
material evidence, the Solicitor General holds the view that the respondent
“is chargeable only with failure to exercise utmost care in the
performance of his functions as a Notary Public”, and that his case
“is similar to that of Tahimik Ramirez vs. Atty.
Jaime Ner (Administrative Case No. 500, September 27,
1967) where it appeared that the respondent notarized a deed of sale of a
vehicle without requiring the presence of the vendee during the execution of
the document and in which case We held that the act committed by said
respondent was not serious enough to justify disbar­ment nor suspension.  As a consequence, the recommendation of the
Solicitor General is that respondent herein “be exonerated of the charge
of falsification contained in the report of the NBI and submitted to this
Honorable Court as basis of these proceedings”, but that for his failure
to exercise utmost care in ascertaining the identity of the persons acknowledging
documents before him, he be warned to be more careful here­after, with the
further warning that a similar complaint against him in the future will merit
more drastic action.

As We consider the findings of the
Solicitor General as fully borne out by the evidence, and the respondent, in
his Answer dated September 29, 1968,
has expressly agreed to and accepted the recommendation made in the report,
both the findings and recommendation are hereby approved.

WHEREFORE, the herein respondent is hereby warned to be
more careful in the future in the performance of his duties as Notary Public,
and that any well grounded complaint in the future against him upon similar
grounds will merit a stiffer penalty.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.