EN BANC
A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017
NENITA DE GUZMAN FERGUSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR P. RAMOS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is the Complaint-Affidavit,1 filed by Nenita De Guzman Ferguson (complainant), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Salvador P. Ramos (Atty. Ramos) for falsification, violation of notarial law and engaging in private practice while employed in the government service.
The Antecedents
Complainant alleged that on November 25, 2007, she purchased a house and lot located in San Rafael, Bulacan, for the sum of P800,000.00; that without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) mainly to transfer the title of the said property to her name; that the seller was unaware that the said CLOA was void ab initio as the subject land was not an agricultural land and there existed a 10-year prohibition to transfer the subject land; that in 2009; complainant instituted a petition for the cancellation of the CLOA before the DAR Office; that the defendants were represented by Atty. Ramos, who was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan; that complainant withdrew the petition before the DAR and filed the case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos City (RTC); that upon receipt of the Answer, complainant found out that it was strikingly similar to the one filed by the defendants in the DAR, which was prepared by Atty. Ramos; that complainant discovered that the Deed of Sale2 dated April 24, 2009, which became the basis of the transfer of title was fraudulently altered as it only covered the sale of the land, not the house and lot, and the price indicated was only P188,340.00, not the amount of P800,000.003 that she actually paid; that her signature and that of her husband, Douglas Ferguson (Douglas), were forged; that Atty. Ramos notarized the deed of sale without their presence; and that complainant and her husband neither appeared, executed nor acknowledged any document before Atty. Ramos as they never met him in person.
In his Comment,4 Atty. Ramos denied that he represented the defendants in the case before the DAR but he admitted that he notarized their Answer. With respect to the charge of falsification of the April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale and the notarization of the aforementioned deed, Atty. Ramos likewise denied any participation and countered that his signature as a notary public was forged. Atty. Ramos, nonetheless, admitted that he notarized the "genuine" Deed of Sale,5 dated May 12, 2009, executed between vendor Alfredo Inosanto, and vendees complainant and her spouse, involving the Same property for the amount of P300,000.00.6 Atty. Ramos surmised that whoever benefited from such dastardly act could be the culprit in the falsification of the document as the forged deed of sale which indicated a lesser purchase price was the one presented in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan in order to evade payment of a higher capital gains tax.
In its Resolution,7 dated February 29, 2012 the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The case was then set by the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP for mandatory conference. Thereafter, parties were required to submit their respective position papers.
In its Report and Recommendation,8 dated November 21, 2014, the CBD found Atty. Ramos guilty of violating the law on notarial practice and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and, in case he held a commission as a notary public; that it be revoked and that he be disqualified to act as a notary public for a period of two (2) years to be counted after his suspension. The CBD stated that the defense of forgery, without any corroborative evidence, was not credible. As to the charge. that of engaging in a private practice while employed in the government service against Atty. Ramos, the CBD opined that it should be addressed to the Civil Service Commission for the determination of his appropriate administrative liability.
In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-458,9 dated June 6, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the CBD, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and Respondent's notarization of a document in the absence of the parties' in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Thus, Respondent Atty. Salvador P. Ramos' notarial commission, if presently commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document –
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. 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 acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-11.
2 Annex "M" for Complainant and Annex "9-A" for the respondent, Id. at 104-105.
3 Id. at 4.
4 Id. at 35-50.
5 Annex "14", id. at 129.
6 Id. at 45.
7 Id. at 140.
8 Id. at 259-264.
9 Id. at 257-258.
10Bautista v. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 240 (2006).
11Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, 461 Phil. 1, 11 (2003).
12Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzalez, 530 Phil. 748, 756 (2007).
13 499 Phil. 345, 350 (2005).
14Ocampo-Ingcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., 458 Phil. 803, 813 (2003).
15Cabanilla v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, supra note 11.
16Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 240 (2006).
17 489 Phil. 257 (2005).
18 Supra note 14.