OCA CIRCULAR NO. 80-2003, June 17, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is die’ decision of the Court’s Third Division in
Administrative Case No. 4958 entitled “Fidel D. Aquino vs. Atty. Oscar
Manese” dated April 3, 2003, to wit:

Complainant alleges that, inter alia, he
has since 1960 been tilling the land subject of the Deed of Absolute
Sale as tenant of the now deceased owner thereof, Luis M. Cardona; in
1975, the spouses Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully took possession of the
land, thus spawning the filing of a case that reached the’ Court of
Appeals which recognized him to be,the lawful tenant;^[4]
and on September 15, 1994, without his knowledge, the Deed of Absolute
Sale was purportedly executed on even date by the three heirs of Luis
Cardona, including the already deceased Lilia Cardona, in favor of Ma.
Cita C. Perez, daughter of the spouses Perez, and was notarized by
respondent.

x x x

By his Comment of January 4, 1999^[5],
respondent asserted that complainant has no personality to complain as
he has neither’ a legal right or claim over the land nor any.
personality to challenge the sale; even assuming that Lilia Cardona was
already dead at the time of the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale,
no interested party had complained about it; as a Notary Public, he is
not expected to personally know every person who goes to him for
notarization of documents; and when he notarized the Deed of Absolute
Sale on September 15, 1994, he was only performing his duty as a notary
public.

By Resolution of February 24, 1999,^[6]
this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Despite notice,
respondent failed to appear at. any of the hearings scheduled by the
IBP, he pleading ill health and/or unavailability of counsel.

On June 29, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XV-2002-220^[7]
adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s Report that ‘respondent was
gravely remiss in his obligation as notary public.””The IBP Board of
Governors, however, modified the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner that ‘respondent’s commission as Notary Public be revoked
and that [he] be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years” by recommending that ‘[respondent’s commission as Notary
Public be SUSPENDED with disqualification for appointment as Notary
Public for a period of two (2) years.’

x x x

Respondent’s assertion that complainant lacks the
personality to institute the present complaint does not lie. Complainant
being a tenant at the land subject of the sale, his rights as such have
been disturbed by the transfer of ownership of the land.

In any event, proceedings.for disbarment, under Section 1 of rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, motu proprio be taken by this Court or the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person.

On the merits of the complaint,

The death on November 25, 1990 of Lilia Cardona is documented.^[8]
Her death Certificate shows so. The National Bureau of Investigation,
which made a comparative examination of her specimen signatures and that
appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale, found that the signature on the
latter and the specimen signatures were not written by one and the same
person.^[9]

In the Acknowledgment in the deed, respondent
affirmed that before him ‘personally appeared said vendors [including
the late Lilia Cardona] whos (sic) personal circumstances are shown
above below their names and signatures, all known to [him] and to [him]
known to be the same individual (sic) who executed th[e] instrument and
acknowledged to [him] that the same is their free act and voluntary
deed.’

The said acknowledgment notwithstanding, respondent
asseverated in his Comment to the letter-complaint that he is not
expected to personally know every person who goes to ton for notarization of documents. Such jaunty indifference betrays his
deplorable failure to heed the importance of the notarial act and
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
his duties as a notary public which include the ascertainment that the
persons who signed the document are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him.
 

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. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of
its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public and appended to a private instrument

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, ii document: unless the persons who signed
the same art the very same, persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of whit are
stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s
free act and deed^[10] (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

By respondent’s reckless act of notarizing the Deed
of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-signatories
thereto were the very saint very same person executed it and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were
stated therein; he has undermined the confidence of the public on
notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law
and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers
from, engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

WHEREFORE, for violation of the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent
Atty. Oscar Manese’s notarial commission if extant is REVOKE!) and he
is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2)’years.

Respondent received copy of this Decisiarf/on April 29,

Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law also for a period of two (2)-years, effective immediately. He is’ DIRECTED to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to enable it to determine when his suspension shall haxe taken effect.”

Respondent received copy of this Decision on April 29, 2003.

June 17, 2003.

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[2] Id. p. 29-A

^[3] The Certificate of
Death of Lilia Aguire issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
of Tarlac, Tarlac, shows that she died on November 25, 1990, Id., p. 27.

^[4] Court of Appeals Decision on August 30, 1998, Id. pp. 40-48.

^[5] Id. pp. 59-60.

^[6] Id., p. 74.

^[7] Id. d. 133

^[8] Vide Note 3

^[9] NBI Questioned Documents Reports No. 517-696, Rollo, pp. 16-17.

^[10] Rosalinda Bernanrdo Vda. De Rosales v. Atty. Ramos, A. C. No. 5645, July 2, 20020 at 5-6 (citations omitted)