CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JANUARIO C. FLORES, RESPONDENT.

Pantoja-Mumar versus Flores

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment and disciplinary action brought by Chita Pantoja-Mumar against Attorney Januario C. Flores. The complainant, one of the compulsory heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr., charges the respondent with fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty, and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The heart of the charge is that the respondent, acting as notary public, notarized an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale even though the parties did not personally appear before him, one signatory never affixed her thumbmark in his presence, and the complainant herself never signed the deed. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for notaries public and shows how a lawyer's failure in that seemingly routinary act becomes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified complaint dated March 17, 2001 before the Supreme Court. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on November 26, 2001, and the case was assigned to Investigating Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa. A mandatory conference was held on October 15, 2003, where only the complainant appeared; both parties manifested that they were willing to submit the case on the basis of the pleadings.

In her Report dated January 16, 2006, the Investigating Commissioner found that the acts and omissions of the respondent as notary public had been duly established, and recommended the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. In a Resolution dated May 26, 2006, the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the recommendation with modification, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for two years, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from reappointment for two years. The case then came before the Supreme Court, which rendered its own decision modifying the penalty.

Facts

The respondent prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale covering a three-hectare property in Pangdan, Cambanay, Danao City, in favor of the spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who later secured a Torrens title over the property in their names. The document was dated December 29, 1987. According to the complainant, the transaction did not push through and the deed was not notarized, yet the respondent made it appear that the document was acknowledged before him on that date. She alleged that the document was in truth prepared and forged after June 13, 1988, when the first page was borrowed from a co-heir, and that the spouses Perez themselves declared in writing that they bought the property on June 13, 1988 for 40,000 pesos.

The complainant further alleged that the thumbmark appearing above the typewritten name of Maximina Pantoja was not hers, and that neither of the parties appeared before the respondent as the notarial law requires. The respondent denied the charges. He narrated that on December 29, 1987, he went to the ancestral home of the Pantojas, where the surviving spouse and all the children except the complainant signed the document; that the mother pleaded with him to proceed because she needed the money and promised to have the complainant sign later; and that the mother brought the document into a bedroom to coax Maximina, whom he described as reclusive and suffering from mental imbalance, to affix her thumbmark.

The respondent also invoked prescription and laches, saying the complainant knew of the deed as early as March 2, 1989, when a registered letter from the vendee was received by her son, and that the deed was published in a newspaper of general circulation in March 1989. Before the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent admitted that he did not actually see Maximina affix her thumbmark, and that he notarized the document even without the complainant's signature, conceding under cross-examination that doing so was not proper, legal, or ethical for a notary public.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent may be held administratively liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing the deed without the personal appearance of all the signatories.
• Whether or not the respondent's acts of notarizing a document he did not see fully executed, and which lacked the signature of one co-heir, constitute unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension from the practice of law and revocation of the notarial commission is proper, and for what period.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

This is the general duty the respondent breached when he notarized a deed without ascertaining that the signatories personally appeared before him.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court held that the respondent's careless notarization amounted to conduct falling under this proscription.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is administratively liable. The Court stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities of their duties. The Court laid down the rule:

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

The Court found that the respondent admitted he did not actually see Maximina Pantoja affix her thumbmark, relying only on the mother's representation, and that he notarized the deed despite the absence of the complainant's signature. In so doing, he undermined public confidence in notarial documents.

On the second issue, the Court held that by notarizing the deed without ascertaining that all the vendors-signatories were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him, the respondent breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On the third issue, the Court held that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and must be exercised with great caution, for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer. Disbarment should not be decreed where a less severe punishment would accomplish the end desired. Considering that this was the respondent's first administrative offense, the Court modified the IBP's recommended two-year suspension to one year. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the other matters raised, since they involve the merits of the pending civil case, best left for the trial court to decide.

Doctrine

A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public one and entitles it to full faith and credit upon its face, so notaries must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities of their office. A lawyer who notarizes a deed without the personal appearance of all signatories engages in conduct that breaches Canon 1, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for legal processes, and Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In imposing sanctions, disbarment is the most severe penalty and must be imposed only in clear cases of misconduct affecting the lawyer's standing and moral character; where a less severe punishment such as suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired, it should be preferred, and the absence of a prior disciplinary record is a mitigating factor.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Januario C. Flores guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, revoked his notarial commission if still existing, disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him. Examiners use this case to test the duties of a notary public and the application of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule that disbarment is imposed only with great caution and that a first offense may merit a lesser penalty.