FACTS:

The complainant, Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo, and Marcelino G. Soriano were co-owners of a parcel of land in Davao City. However, on July 19, 1990, a Special Power of Attorney was prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro. This document stated that Felicidad, her deceased spouse Alberto Bernardo, and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino Soriano, Jr. as their attorney-in-fact to sell the land. Felicidad contested the authenticity of the document, claiming that neither she nor her deceased husband appeared before respondent and executed it. She also argued that her husband had already died in 1980, making it impossible for him to have appeared and executed the Special Power of Attorney.

As a result of the allegedly fraudulent document, the land was sold to a third party. In order to recover her share, Felicidad engaged the services of a lawyer who would be paid 25 percent in attorney's fees on a contingent basis. Felicidad filed a complaint seeking the disbarment or indefinite suspension of respondent, as well as her share of the property, attorney's fees, and costs of the suit.

Respondent defended himself by stating that he would not have prepared and notarized the document if Felicidad and the other individuals did not appear before him and acknowledge it. He claimed that a living Alberto Bernardo personally appeared before him in Davao City and signed the Special Power of Attorney.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. However, during the hearing, only Felicidad and her counsel were present. Respondent submitted a manifestation explaining that he could not attend the hearing due to prior commitments.

In her memorandum, Felicidad alleged that the individuals who appeared before respondent were impostors and that he should have contacted them and revoked the unauthorized Special Power of Attorney upon learning of their deception. However, the Investigating Commissioner found that this claim was not satisfactorily established.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney.

2. Whether or not respondent should be disbarred or indefinitely suspended.

RULING:

1. Yes, respondent committed malpractice, deceit, and grave misconduct in preparing and notarizing the Special Power of Attorney. The complainant presented evidence that her husband, who was named as one of the appointees in the document, had already passed away before the document was executed. This proves that the respondent did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the identities and legal capacities of the parties involved.

2. Yes, respondent should be indefinitely suspended. The Court held that respondent's acts constitute grave misconduct and malpractice, which are gross violations of his duties as a lawyer. Such acts warrant suspension as an appropriate disciplinary action.

PRINCIPLES:

• Notarization implies that the notary public knows the identity and legal capacity of the parties involved in the document.

• Lawyers have a duty to exercise due diligence in determining the truthfulness and legality of the instruments they prepare and notarize.

• Grave misconduct and malpractice are grounds for the disbarment or indefinite suspension of a lawyer.