JULIAN C. DINOY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JESUS ROSAL, RESPONDENT.

Mr. Julian C. Dinoy sent the Secretary of Justice an unverified letter
dated 23 August 1991, charging Atty. Jesus Rosal with having notarized a
Special Power of Attorney dated 8 May 1989 in favor of one Estela Gentacutan,
at a time when some of the principals (i.e., Cesaria Bacalla and Jose
Gentacutan) mentioned in the document were already dead. The letter was indorsed to the Court which
in turn referred it to the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (“Committee”) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

A series of communications were then exchanged between Mr. Dinoy
and the Committee, among which was another unverifed letter from Mr. Dinoy
dated 9 March 1992 containing evidence tending to support his charge against
Atty. Rosal. Such evidence
included: (a) a xerox copy of a death
certificate issued by the Parish Church of San Nicolas, Cebu City indicating
that one Cesaria Bacalla died on 10 February 1981; (b) a photograph of a
headstone indicating that Jose Gentacutan died on 2 April 1974; and (c) a xerox
copy of a certification issued by the Parish Church of San Nicolas, Cebu City
indicating that the skeletal remains of Jose Gentacutan have been interred in
the Calamba Roman Catholic Cemetery, Cebu City. When the investigation was already well under way, Mr. Dinoy
submitted a “Supple­mentary Affidavit” dated 25 September 1993
wherein he declared that the act complained of “is illegal and unlawful
and he (Atty. Rosal) should be punished for this act (by) disbarment from (the)
practice of law.”

Meanwhile, the Committee, through Commissioner Presbitero J.
Velasco, issued an order dated 18 June 1992 inquiring if the parties desired a
change of venue to Cebu City, since both are residents thereat. Complainant Dinoy agreed; respondent Rosal
gave no response.

In an order dated 3 February 1993, the Committee, this time
acting through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, required Atty. Rosal to submit
his answer to the complaint. Respondent
filed a verified answer dated 23 February 1993 to the complaint. Respondent asserted that notwithstanding the
heavy workload of documents to be notarized which he faced on the day he dealt
with the document in question, he was able to interview each of the persons who
executed the Special Power of Attorney regarding their personal circumstances
and the consequences of their act; he was satisfied the persons who signed the
document were the ones who represented themselves to be such. Respondent asked that the complaint be
dismissed for lack of merit.

Complainant filed a reply thereto as well as a motion to transfer
venue. In an order dated 13 April 1993,
the Committee finally designated Cebu City as the venue of the investigation
and authorized the local chapter president thereat, Atty. Manuel P. Legaspi, to
receive the evidence of the parties and submit a recommendation thereon.

A hearing was set by Atty. Legaspi on 19 August 1993, but it was
reset to 24 September 1993 because the respondent was unavailable. The record of this case contains no
indication that a hearing was actually held on this subsequent date; although
Atty. Legaspi in his report mentioned a hearing being conducted on 7 October
1993.

Atty. Legaspi eventually promulgated a resolution dated 14
December 1993 finding that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
ascertaining the identities and capacities of the individuals who executed the
document dated 8 May 1989. Atty.
Legaspi reasoned that the volume of documents respondent declared having
notarized (e.g., sixty-five [65] documents on 5 May 1989, eighty-seven [87]
documents on 8 May 1989 and eighty-nine [89] documents on 10 May 1989) before,
during and after the date in question would render it unlikely that respondent
conducted a careful interview of the individuals who executed the questioned
document.

Atty. Legaspi observed, however, that the complainant presented
no proof that respondent acted with malice, ill-will or bad faith in committing the negligent act complained
of; complainant cannot therefore insist upon the disbarment of the respondent.

In a Report and Recommendation dated 15 April 1994, the Committee
adopted Atty. Legaspi’s report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months. This disposition was adopted by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) on 26 May 1994 by way of
Resolution No. XI-94-077.

Deliberating upon the present administrative case, after a
careful review of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the conclusions
of the IBP in its Report are supported by substantial evidence. The findings of the IBP’s Report are hereby
adapted by the Court as its own.

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a
public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity; courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be
able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended
to a private document.^[1]
Consequently, it is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that a document
be signed in his presence by the real parties thereto; the notarial officer
must observe “utmost care” to comply with the elementary formalities
in the performance of his duties.^[2]

In this case, respondent’s failure to observe the required
standard of care was not only evident from his inconsistent admissions as noted
by Atty. Legaspi, but also from the documentary evidence submitted by the
complainant which demonstrated that two (2) of the eight (8) co-owners of a
parcel of land who executed the special power of attorney dated 8 May 1989 were
already deceased well before the time respondent notarized the document in
question.

Furthermore, although the Court agrees with the IBP’s
recommendation that the respondent be administratively sanctioned for his
negligence, we find the recommended penalty of six (6) month’s suspension from
the practice of law to be unduly harsh, considering that complainant had not
shown that the respondent had deliberately acknowledged and recorded a
falsehood when he notarized the document dated 8 May 1989,^[3] and
considering further that the present complaint relates to the notarization of
one (1) document only.^[4]

ACCORDINGLY, Attorney Jesus Rosal is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) months for negligence in the
performance of his duty as a notary public with the WARNING that repetition of
the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely. Copies of this Resolution
shall be furnished to all courts of the land. Copies shall also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and to the Office of the Bar Confidant and spread on the personal record of
respondent attorney.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Section 23, Rule 132; Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148, 153-154
(1917), reiterated in Joson v. Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114, 119 (1991).

^[2]
See Realino v. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318, 322 (1978).

^[3]
Ordonio v. Eduarte, 207 SCRA 229, 232-233 (1992).

^[4]
See Joson v. Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114 (1991).