View full case

FELIPE E. ABELLA v. ATTY. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA

FACTS:

The complaint filed by Felipe E. Abella against Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra alleges a violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (RA 6713) or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Abella claims that Cruzabra, who was appointed as Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City, engaged in private practice while employed in the government service.

Abella asserts that Cruzabra filed a petition for commission as a notary public and was commissioned without obtaining prior authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Abella further states that Cruzabra notarized approximately 3,000 documents before being reprimanded by the Chief of the Investigation Division of the Land Registration Authority. Abella argues that even if Cruzabra had obtained authority from the DOJ, she would still be guilty of violating RA 6713 because her practice as a notary public conflicts with her official functions.

In response, Cruzabra admits that she was a notary public from February 29, 1988, to December 31, 1989, and claims that she was authorized by her superior, the Register of Deeds, to act as a notary public. Cruzabra states that she did not charge fees for documents required by the office to be presented under oath and that her notarial work complemented her functions as Deputy Register of Deeds. She also contends that she only notarized 135 documents, as certified by the Clerk of Court.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Cruzabra, citing her reliance on the authority of her superior and her ceasing to perform notarial work after being reprimanded.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713.

  2. Whether the respondent's act of notarizing documents conflicts with her official functions as Deputy Register of Deeds.

RULING:

  1. The complaint against the respondent is dismissed for lack of merit. The respondent's application for commission as a Notary Public without securing the approval of the proper authority was not her own undoing as she relied on the authority of her superior officer. Moreover, after being reprimanded, the respondent ceased and desisted from performing notarial work.

  2. The respondent's act of notarizing documents did not conflict with her official functions as Deputy Register of Deeds because it complemented her duties and allowed for immediate notarization of documents instead of requiring registrants to look for a separate notary public.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, even for non-lawyers.

  • Good faith may be a defense if a mistake is committed without willfulness, malice, or corruption.

  • The authority of a superior officer can be relied upon by a subordinate, especially in a neophyte in the legal profession.

  • Ceasing and desisting from performing an act after being reprimanded shows good faith and a willingness to rectify any mistakes.

  • Notarizing documents can complement the official functions of a public official when it allows for immediate notarization of required documents.