View full case

DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA v. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO

FACTS:

Dominador L. Cabanilla, a married 1st Lieutenant in the Signal Detachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, filed an application for a miscellaneous patent over a 240-square meter parcel of land. He was allowed to construct a house on the land. When his wife, Revelina B. Cabanilla, died intestate, she was survived by Dominador and their children. Dominador sold a portion of the house to his neighbor, Rodolfo Sabangan. However, when Dominador reviewed the Deed of Sale, he noticed that it appeared he was relinquishing his rights not only over the portion of the house but also the lot where it stood. Dominador made a notation requesting a revision of the deed but it was not revised as requested. Dominador's application for a miscellaneous patent was granted and Original Certificate of Title No. 2222 was issued over the property in the names of the Cabanilla spouses. Dominador then filed a civil complaint against Rodolfo for the annulment of the deed of sale. Meanwhile, a Joint Affidavit of Complaint was filed against Rodolfo and his lawyer, Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio, for falsification of a document. An Information was filed charging Rodolfo with falsification of a public document. During the pre-trial of Dominador's civil case, Rodolfo did not appear and the court set aside its order declaring him in default. Dominador and his children then filed another civil complaint for the annulment of the same deed of sale, but the case was dismissed on the ground of litis pedentia and forum-shopping.

The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Dominador Cabanilla against the respondent, Atty. Elvira Lajom. Dominador alleged that the respondent notarized a deed of sale in which he and his children, Manuel Cabanilla et al., were purported to be parties without their knowledge and consent. Dominador claimed that the signatures opposite their names were forgeries. He also filed a criminal complaint for perjury against the respondent. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) referred the matter for investigation and the Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of the respondent's commission as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation. The only issue in the case is whether or not the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the complainants and their children appearing before her. Dominador and the other complainants asserted that they never met or appeared before the respondent and that their signatures on the deed were forged. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that Manuel Cabanilla, et al., consented to and approved the deed, that they themselves prepared the deed and brought it to her for notarization, and that she ascertained the authenticity of the signatures before notarizing the deed. She also argued that Dominador's complaint was solely motivated by his desire to recover the property from the vendee, Rodolfo.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the parties appearing before her and acknowledging the same.

  2. Whether or not the respondent failed to exercise the functions of her office and comply with the mandates of the law.

  3. Whether the Respondent properly notarized the deed of sale despite the clear request for revision by one of the parties.

  4. Whether the Respondent properly acknowledged the vendors in the deed of sale.

  5. Whether the Respondent properly verified the identities and signatures of the parties in the deed of sale.

  6. Whether the respondent lawyer should be held liable for misrepresenting herself as the representative of the complainant in a settlement deed.

  7. Whether the respondent lawyer's delay in filing a complaint for disbarment against her can be used as a defense.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled in favor of the complainant and affirmed the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. It found that the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the parties appearing before her and acknowledging the same, thereby failing to exercise the functions of her office and comply with the mandates of the law.

  2. The Respondent demeaned the office of a notary public by notarizing the deed of sale despite the party's request for its revision. The Respondent should have advised the party to revise the deed to reflect their true agreement.

  3. The Respondent improperly certified in the acknowledgment that certain individuals were vendors even though their names did not appear on page 1 of the deed. This was a violation of the Respondent's duty as a notary public.

  4. The Respondent failed to require the parties to show their respective certificates, verify their identities, and ascertain the genuineness of the signatures. This was a violation of the Respondent's duty as a notary public.

  5. The respondent lawyer is held liable for misrepresenting herself as the representative of the complainant in a settlement deed. This constitutes a breach of notarial law and a violation of Canon I and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, her notarial commission, if still existing, is revoked, and she is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years.

  6. The respondent lawyer's delay in filing a complaint for disbarment against her cannot be used as a defense. The Court's disciplinary authority cannot be frustrated by a mere delay in filing a complaint or the complainant's motivation to do so. The practice of law is intimately connected with public interest, and lawyers have a duty to uphold the law and legal processes. Consequently, the respondent lawyer is also suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the document is the same person who executed it and acknowledged that it is his or her free act and deed.

  • A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before the notary public.

  • The presence of the parties to the deed making the acknowledgment enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.

  • Failure to comply with the requirement of presenting a residence certificate when a document is acknowledged before a notary public is sufficient basis for the revocation of the notary public's commission.

  • Notarization converts a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

  • A notary public is obligated to observe with utmost care the basic formalities and requisites in the performance of their duties.

  • A notary public is mandated to discharge sacred duties that are impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.

  • It is the duty of a notary public to refrain from notarizing a document with blatant defects and advise the parties to revise the document to reflect their true agreement.

  • A notary public should properly verify the identities and signatures of the parties in a document and require them to show their respective certificates.

  • The practice of law is a vital function of democracy and lawyers are guardians of the truth and the rule of law.

  • Lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

  • Lawyers should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from making false statements and should adhere to their oath to do no falsehood.

  • The Court has the authority to regulate and control the practice of law to promote public welfare.