View full case

JIMMY ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA

FACTS:

Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon, along with their siblings, co-own a parcel of land in Sison, Pangasinan. The respondent, Atty. Arturo B. Cefra, is a distant relative of the complainants and is a lawyer and notary public in Sison, Pangasinan. On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land owned by the complainants and their siblings. However, the complainants claimed that their signatures were forged and they did not sign the document in the presence of Atty. Cefra.

The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the signatures of the complainants were indeed forged. The complainants filed a criminal case of falsification of public document and a disciplinary action against Atty. Cefra. Atty. Cefra failed to comply with court orders and was eventually ordered arrested and committed. After his arrest, Atty. Cefra submitted his comment on the case. He argued that the complainants were aware of the sale and that he assisted in the preparation of the documents. He admitted that one of the relative's signatures was forged but claimed that he notarized the document in good faith.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years.

The Board of Governors adopted the same findings but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from reappointment as a notary public. Atty. Cefra filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Board of Governors proposed to reduce the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial practice if presently existing, and a two-year suspension of his notarial practice. Neither party filed a petition for review of the resolution, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants.

  2. Whether or not Atty. Arturo B. Cefra is guilty of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the affiants.

  3. Whether or not Atty. Cefra is guilty of failure to comply with an order from the court.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants.

  2. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra is found guilty of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the affiants. He is also found guilty of failure to comply with an order from the court. As a result, he is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

PRINCIPLES:

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

  • Notarization engages public interest and requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts.

  • The acknowledgment of a document should be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law, and it requires the affiant to appear in person before the notary public.

  • A notary public should not perform a notarial act if the signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization.

  • Notaries public are duty-bound to demand that the document presented for notarization be signed in their presence to verify the genuineness of the affiants' signatures and to guard against illegal deeds.

  • Transgressing the rules on notarial practice compromises the integrity of notarized documents and undermines the assurance of the parties' true agreement expressed in the document.

  • Notaries public should exercise vigilance and not rely solely on the representations of the parties submitting the document for notarization. They should ensure that the terms and conditions of the document are favorable to all parties involved and guard against forgery.

  • Notaries public are required to observe strict compliance with the requirements of law in order to maintain the integrity of notarized documents.

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

  • Disobedience of a court order is a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts.

  • Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

  • Failure to comply with court orders reflects irresponsibility and disrespect for the lawful orders of the court.