FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 10540 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2105], November 28, 2019
SPOUSES ELMER AND MILA SORIANO, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. GERVACIO B. ORTIZ, JR. AND ATTY. ROBERTO B. ARCA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before the Court is a Complaint1 filed by complainants, the spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano (the Spouses Soriano), on October 23, 2007 against respondents, Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Area, for allegedly notarizing documents without the presence of the complainants in violation of the Notarial Law.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In their complaint, the Spouses Soriano alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Barrio Bagbagan, City of Muntinlupa, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 162098. According to them, they intended on selling the property, to one of their sisters. In order to assess the amount of tax that will be due from such sale, Marciana Reyes, sister of complainant Mila Soriano, entrusted the owner's copy of the title to a certain Susan Manito sometime in February 2006. But the title and other pertinent documents were never returned to Reyes. Subsequently, Reyes came to know from persons ·close to a certain Gaila Montero that the title was mortgaged to the latter in the amount of P260,000.00. At first, Reyes was afraid to tell the Spouses Soriano about her discovery, but when she could no longer solve the problem herself, she had no choice but to inform them of the same. The Spouses Soriano immediately went to the house of Montero, introduced themselves to her, and tried to secure a copy of the alleged mortgage contract. Montero told them to come back the next day. Upon their return, the Spouses Soriano were surprised to be confronted by persons claiming to be from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) who wanted to take them to Camp Crame, Quezon City but they refused to go.2
Instead, the Spouses Soriano went to the Register of Deeds (RD) of Muntinlupa City where they discovered that a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006 was registered and annotated at the back of their title under Entry No. 64418. Based on said deed, they appear to be the mortgagors of the subject property covering a loan obtained from Montero in the amount of P60,000.00. They, however, assail the authenticity of the Deed of Mortgage. They deny the signatures appearing thereon for being clearly different from their actual signatures. They also deny having appeared before the notary public listed thereon in the persons of respondents Ortiz and Area. Neither have they authorized any other person to mortgage the subject property on their behalf. According to the Spouses Soriano, moreover, the Community Tax Certificates (CTC) indicated in the deed do not belong to them for in the acknowledgment portion thereof, it was stated that their certificates were secured from the City of Manila when they are residents of Molino, Cavite.3
On August 16, 2006, the Spouses Soriano went back to the RD of Muntinlupa City and to their surprise, a new annotation appeared on their title. This time, a document entitled Supplemental to the Deed of Mortgage was registered under Entry No. 64467 and was notarized by respondent Area. In the said document, it again appears that the Spouses Soriano secured an additional P200,000.00 from Montero using the same title as collateral. As with the first annotation, the Spouses Soriano deny having mortgaged the subject property to Montero for an additional loan, having signed the said Supplemental, and having appeared before respondent Arca.4 Consequently, they filed a civil case for the recovery of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT and nullification of mortgages. They also caused the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on the title under Entry No. 64808 and inscribed on August 29, 2006.5
By way of defense, respondent Ortiz denied having prepared and notarized the Deed of Mortgage between the Spouses Soriano and Montero. He also maintained that the parties never appeared before him on March 8, 2006. According to Ortiz, he was conferred a notarial commission in Manila for two (2) years beginning on the year 2004 and ending on December 31, 2005. In the early part of 2005, however, Ortiz received information that his signature was being forged. For.this.reason, he made a written request to the Executive Judge of Manila for the pre-termination of his notarial commission, which was granted on June 4, 2005. Thus, for all legal intents and purposes, his notarial commission for the City of Manila ended on June 4, 2005. Ortiz, subsequently, applied for another notarial commission, this time, at the City of Makati which was granted from June 21, 2005 to December 31, 2006. From this, it is clear that on March 8, 2006, the date of the execution of the Deed of Mortgage, Ortiz was no longer commissioned as notary public in the City of Manila.6
For his part, respondent Area did not deny notarizing the subject documents and even admitted the same. Instead, he refuted the claims of the Spouses Soriano that they never appeared before him and that the signatures on the documents do not belong to them. For Area, these claims are self serving and must not be sustained. He also maintained that since the Spouses Soriano sought the revocation of the mortgages, they cannot thereafter assert the nullity thereof since revocation implies that the mortgages are valid. Finally, Area insisted that it is the Executive Judge and not the Commission on Bar Discipline that has jurisdiction over the case, because the Spouses Soriano were seeking to discipline him as a notary public and not as a lawyer.7
In a Report8 dated September 21, 2010, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that the complaint against respondent Ortiz be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. But with respect to respondent Area, it was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, that his notarial commission be revoked, and that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years.9
In a Resolution10 dated December 29, 2012, the Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. With respect to respondent Ortiz, the BOG dismissed the complaint against him. With respect to respondent Area, the BOG resolved to suspend him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, revoke his notarial commission, if commissioned, and disqualify him from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years.
In another Resolution11 dated March 22, 2014, however, the BOG affirmed, with modification, its earlier resolution, and reverted back to the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Thus, with respect to respondent' Ortiz, the BOG resolved to dismiss the complaint against him. With respect to respondent Area, the BOG resolved to suspend him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, revoke his notarial commission, if commissioned, and disqualify him from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years.
In his Petition for Review, respondent Area questions why the BOG, after modifying the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to suspend him from the practice of law from one (1) year to six (6) months, reverted back to the one (1) year-suspension that the Investigating Commissioner originally recommended without citing any reason for its change of mind. Ultimately, Area seeks the Court's compassion considering that the instant case is his first offense. Citing several jurisprudential teachings, he claims that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years is inappropriate since his omission relates to his actuations as notary public and not as a lawyer. Instead, he believes that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for a period of three (3) years is more in line with his infraction.12
To be sure, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the instant case, the Court finds the recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner and BOG to be well taken. We remain unconvinced by the excuses interposed by Area who, in his Answer to the Complaint, essentially relied on the presumption that he performed his duties according to law. In his Petition, moreover, Area no longer denied the accusations against him and simply sought the Court's compassion for a lesser penalty. But to recall, Area notarized the subject documents on the mere presentation of CTCs secured from the City of Manila when the Spouses Soriano are residents of Molino, Cavite. In addition, it has not escaped the Court's attention that Area negligently notarized not just one mortgage on March 8, 2006 for P60,000.00 but two mortgages, the second one on May 8, 2006 for an additional P200,000.00. As such, we cannot grant Arca's request for the mitigation of his penalty in light of applicable case law that dictate otherwise.
x x x x
Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.21
Endnotes:
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Special Order No. 2734 dated November 8, 2019.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 2726 dated October 25, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2Id. at 2-3.
3Id. at 3-4.
4Id. at 4.
5Id. at 4-5.
6Id. at 80-83.
7Id. at 26-41.
8Id. at 372-388.
9Id. at 388.
10Id. at 370-371.
11Id. at 369.
12Id. at 400-415.
13 466 Phil. 296 (2004).
14 507 Phil. 410 (2005).
15 564 Phil. 1 (2007).
16Soriano v. Atty. Basco, supra note 14, at 414.
17Father Aquino v. Atty. Pascua, supra note 15, at 4.
18Tabas v. Atty. Mangibin, supra note 13, at 304.
19 704 Phil. 1 (2013).
20Id. at 7.
21Id. at 7-9.
22Id. at 9, citing Isenhardt v. Atty. Real, 682 Phil. 19, 27 (2012); Atty. Linco v. Atty. Lacebal, 675 Phil. 160, 168 (2011); Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon, 587 Phil. 658, 662 (2008).
23Id. at 8.