BENJAMIN J. SOTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RUBEN B. LACRE, RESPONDENT.

Benjamin J. Soto filed a complaint for disbarment against Ruben B.
Lacre for having notarized on July 23, 1970 a special power of attorney wherein
it is stated that Enrico A. Mendoza, one of the principals who executed the
said docu­ment, is of legal age when in truth he was then only eighteen years
old, as shown in his residence
certificate, the number, date and place of issue of which are indicated in the
notarial acknowledgement for the said document.

After the respondent had filed his answer, the case was referred
to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

Certain facts about the personal circumstances of complainant
Soto and Enrico A. Mendoza should be stated at the outset so that the case may be viewed in proper perspective.

Complainant Soto is the
brother of Damian Soto, the common-law
husband of Filomena Ablaza. Filomena is the aunt of Enrico. Filomena and
Enrico are the co-owners of a parcel of land located at 617-19 Pacheco Street,
Tondo, Manila which is occu­pied by Benjamin Soto.

In August, 1970 Filomena Ablaza and Enrico A. Mendoza filed in
the city court of Manila an ejectment suit against Benjamin J. Soto in order to
recover possession of the said land. It
was in connection with the prosecution of that suit that the above-mentioned special power of attorney was
executed by Filomena and Enrico in favor of Jose T. Vicencio who was empowered
to represent the co-owners in the ejectment action.

Benjamin J. Soto lost the case in the city court and in the Court
of First Instance. He appealed to the
Court of Appeals where the case is pending.

The Solicitor General in his report of March 22, 1977 explains
why the complaint for disbarment should be dismissed:

“The primary issue involved is whether respondent as a notary
public should go beyond the identity of the parties to a contract by inquiring
as to the veracity of the contents stated in the document particularly the age
of the affiants.

“Complainant contends that it is incumbent upon res­pondent as
a notary public to inquire into the actual age of Enrico Mendoza inasmuch as
the Special Power of Attorney executed by Enrico Mendoza and Filomena Ablaza
became the basis of a com­plaint for unlawful detainer against him. On the other hand, res­pondent claims that
the acknowledgment of the document by him, in his capacity as notary public, is
limited to the establishment of the identity of the parties involved therein
and that they exe­cuted the document voluntarily and of their own free will, so
that outside of this, he is not answerable to the veracity of the allegations
stated in the document in question.

“Public Act No. 2103, Section 1, provides that an
acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by the law of the country to take ack­nowledgments of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. It consists of a certification of said officer that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the
same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and
deed. The certificate shall be made
under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
this certificate shall so state.

“Accordingly, the notary’ s primary duty is to ascer­tain the
identity of parties executing the document and whether the execution of the
document by them is their own free act. While incidentally also he has to ascertain a party’ s capacity to act,
in the case at bar there was nothing to indicate in res­pondent that Enrico
Mendoza, then aged 18, was still a minor. Respondent owed no special duty to require proof of the age of Enrico
Mendoza. By appearance it was not
possible for res­pondent to assume that Mendoza was below the age of
majority. Respondent did all that a
prudent man was expected to do.

“As fully established by the defense, by merely looking at
Enrico Mendoza, when he personally appeared before res­pondent lawyer to sign
and acknowledge the Special Power of Attorney he and Filomena Ablaza had
executed in favor of Jose T. Vicencio, respondent was fully convinced that said
Enrico Mendoza was of legal age, because respondent noted that Enrico Mendoza
is approximately 5’8″, taller than he, who is 5’6”, and approximately
weighs more or less 130 pounds (tsn. pp. 23-24, September 10, 1973; tsn. p. 46,
October 27, 1972).

“The antecedent circumstances attendant to the subse­quent
institution of this disbarment proceeding clearly indicate that complainant was
not entirely motivated by assuring merely that respondent as a member of the
bar adheres to the lawyer’ s oath. He
lost the ejectment case in the City Court of Manila. He appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. He lost there also. He then took an appeal to the Court of
Appeals. Complainant also filed a
criminal case for falsification of public document against Enrico Mendoza, Jose
T. Vicencio and res­pondent lawyer. The
said criminal case was dismissed for failure of the prosecution to establish
the elements of falsifica­tion (tsn, pp. 12-15 & 36, September 10,
1973). Thus, Ben­jamin Sotto’s instant
complaint gives the impression that it may have been prompted by his resentment
in having lost the civil and criminal cases. His failure to strike back at his brother, Damian Soto, directly or
through the latter’ s wife, Filomena Ablaza, and his ward, Enrico Mendoza, by
the dismissal of the falsification case, apparently deepened his frus­tration. As a final thrust, complainant evidently
decided to unleash his disappointments on respondent lawyer, who appeared in
the ejectment case for Damian Soto and his family.

“Caution or great care should be taken by persons before
instituting a complaint for disciplinary action against members of the
bar. Otherwise, irreparable injury
would result from unfounded or baseless accusation such as the instant
case. Certain degree of care, prudence
and reflection should, therefore, be exercised by them before complaining
against any member of the bar, who is not guilty of negligence, malice or
corruption to avoid undue harassment and prejudice to him or her. And as the foregoing discussion shows, no
proof has ever been presented to prove that respondent Ruben Lacre was guilty
of any unethical conduct or malpractice.

“In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant and the charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing
proof. The record must disclose as free
from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary
powers. The dubious character of the
act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly de­monstrated (Go
vs. Candoy, Adm. Case No. 736, October 23, 1967; de los Santos vs. Bolaños,
Adm. Case No. 483, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 763; Toquib vs. Tomol, Jr., Adm. Case
No. 554, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 156).

“While the duty of a notary public is principally to ascertain
the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is
nevertheless incumbent upon him at least to verify the capacity of the
affiant. This respondent did. Having been convinced that Enrico Mendoza by
his appearance was of the required age to execute the Special Power of Attorney
it can­not be gainsaid that respondent lawyer acted prudently under the
circumstances of this case. Hence, no
negligence may be attri­buted to respondent lawyer.

“In the herein case, the special power of attorney was already
prepared when brought to respondent, Ruben Lacre. The numbers, dates and place of issue of the respective residence
certificates of the parties were already written therein. So what respondent did was to compare the
numbers, dates and place of issue stated therein, with the residence
certificates presented to him, without, however, looking over the data as to
place of birth, date of birth, status and others, as he was convinced as
already stated, by the physical appearance of Enrico Mendoza that he is of
legal age.

“Satisfied that the persons appearing before him were the
parties to the document (Exhibit A) and that they acknowledged to him that they
executed it of their own free will and deed, respondent notarized the said document. No legal liability, we submit, can grow out of his act. However, if respondent is to be held
accountable at all, it must be on the ground of neg­ligence, malice or
corruption, which have not been adduced in this case.

“Respondent Ruben Lacre, it appears, had not neglected to
perform the duty imposed upon him as a notary public.

“To justify disbarment or suspension, the case against a
lawyer must be free from doubt. The
objective of the disci­pline of an attorney is not retribution or punishment,
but ‘to protect the administration of justice, by requiring that those who
exercise this important function shall be competent, honor­able and reliable;
men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence’ (In re MacDougall,
3 Phil. 70).

“The present proceeding apparently motivated by vengeance
cannot prosper by mere conjectures and surmises. The legal presumption being that the respondent is innocent of
the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the Court in
accordance with his oath, complainant herein must assume the burden of
overcoming this inference by con­vincing proof, but he, nevertheless, fell
short of this requirement, hence, this petition must be dismissed for lack of
merit.”

After a conscientious study of the evidence, we find the
observations and recommendation of the Solicitor General to be
well-founded. Respondent evidently
acted under an honest mistake of fact. There is no showing that he acted maliciously. Hence, the maxim, ignorantia facti excusat, may be applied
in this case.

WHEREFORE, respondent is exonerated and this case is
dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.