View full case

DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ v. ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO

FACTS:

Complainants Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. alleging that respondent notarized a document called the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights which appeared to have been executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. Complainants claimed that their signatures in the document were forged, they did not appear before respondent to acknowledge the document, and the community tax certificates indicated in the document were not theirs.

Complainants contended that respondent made false statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document, stating that they personally appeared before him and affixed their signatures in his presence. As a result, their sister Navarro was able to assume full ownership of their deceased parents' property and sell it to the Department of Public Works and Highways.

Respondent admitted to being involved in the preparation of the document and notarizing it, but claimed that he did so in good faith based on Navarro's representation and assurance that the signatures and community tax certificates were true and correct. Respondent argued that Navarro, who had been neighbors with him for 30 years, would not lie to him. He also argued that he should not be held liable since the falsified document had been revoked and canceled.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent indeed notarized the questioned document based on Navarro's representation and without verifying if the signatures belonged to the complainants. The Commission concluded that respondent committed falsification and violated the Notarial Law. The Commission recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission be revoked (if still existing), and that he be disqualified for reappointment as a notary public for two years.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commission's report and recommendation. The Court agreed with the recommendation and revoked respondent's notarial commission (if still existing), disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court emphasized the importance of notaries public observing the basic requirements in notarizing documents to maintain the public's confidence in notarized documents.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent committed falsification and violation of the Notarial Law by notarizing a document with forged signatures and false community tax certificates.

  2. Whether the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public is appropriate.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The Court held that the respondent committed falsification and violation of the Notarial Law by notarizing a document with forged signatures and false community tax certificates. Therefore, the notarial commission of the respondent, if still existing, is revoked. The respondent is also disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. Moreover, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein.

  • An instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law.

  • Notaries public are required to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate).

  • Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, as notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act.

  • A notarized document is entitled to full credit upon its face, and notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents to maintain public confidence.