View full case

LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA v. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE

FACTS:

Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a falsified Deed of Donation of real property without the appearance of the deceased donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero. In his Answer, the respondent admitted the death of the donors but claimed that he had no knowledge of their deaths at the time of notarization. The issue was whether the respondent violated his duties as a lawyer and notary public. The Commission on Bar Discipline found that the respondent failed to properly perform his duties, as he did not require the presentation of residence certificates and notated the Deed of Donation without making the required entries. The respondent also admitted that the donors had already died and that the document was falsified. The IBP Commissioner recommended the respondent's suspension from practice for one year and the revocation of his notarial commission for two years. The Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline approved the recommendation. The matter was referred to the Court, and the respondent's penalties were upheld. The respondent later requested clearance to resume the practice of law and be commissioned as a notary public, but the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the denial of his request until he completes his serving of the suspension and disqualification. The case was to be resolved for final determination of the status of the suspension and disqualification imposed in another case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent should be held liable for his gross negligence and failure to comply with the basic requirements as a notary public.

  2. Whether the respondent should be held liable as a lawyer for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public due to his gross negligence and dishonest attestation as a notary public.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent should be held liable for his gross negligence and failure to comply with the basic requirements as a notary public. The respondent's failure to ascertain the identities of the affiants and to require the presentation of their residence certificates or any other document to prove their identities clearly demonstrates his gross negligence. The notarization by a notary public is invested with substantive public interest, and failure to observe the basic requirements undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document. Therefore, the respondent should be held liable for his actions as a notary public.

  2. Yes, the respondent should be held liable as a lawyer for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent violated the Notarial Law by falsely representing in his acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were known to him to be the same persons who executed the document. Moreover, the respondent did not comply with the requirement of certifying that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented the proper residence certificate. These actions by the respondent constitute unlawful and dishonest conduct. Furthermore, the respondent's actions are in violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the laws, promote respect for legal processes, and prohibit engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  3. Yes, Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court found Atty. Bernabe liable for gross negligence and deceitful and dishonest attestation in the performance of his duties as a notary public. The Court emphasized that this was Atty. Bernabe's second offense and highlighted his admission that he did not personally know the parties and was not acquainted with them, thus failing to ascertain their identity. In light of these findings, the Court ruled that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred and permanently disqualified from being a notary public.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notarization is invested with substantive public interest and failure to observe the basic requirements undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document.

  • A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and is admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

  • Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

  • Lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal processes, and refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility may result in administrative sanctions, including suspension or disqualification from the practice of law and disbarment.

  • A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act that might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.

  • A notary public should observe the proper procedure in determining the identity of the person appearing before him or her and should not engage in gross negligence or deceitful and dishonest attestation in the performance of his or her duties. Failure to do so may result in disbarment and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.