View full case

CARMELO IRINGAN v. ATTY. CLAYTON B. GUMANGAN

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by Carmelo Iringan against Atty. Clayton Gumangan. The complaint is related to Civil Case No. 518-09, which was filed by Renato and Carmen Iringan against Carmelo for illegal detainer and ejectment with damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of the City of Tabuk, Kalinga.

In their complaint, the spouses Iringan alleged that they are the owners of a piece of land with a two-storey structure that they used as a restaurant called "Emilia's Kitchenette." Renato acquired the right to operate the restaurant from their mother through a Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments. Renato then entered into a contract of lease with Carmelo, wherein Carmelo leased the land and the building for a period of one year. The lease expired, but Carmelo continued to possess the premises with the spouses Iringan's tolerance.

Carmelo claimed that the premises actually belonged to their late parents and accused Renato of being a mere trustee of the premises. He argued that the Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments did not vest ownership of the premises in the spouses Iringan. Carmelo also claimed that the contract of lease was spurious and denied ever entering into such a contract with Renato.

The MTCC rendered a decision in favor of the spouses Iringan, finding that there was a valid contract of lease executed by the parties. The court based its decision on the notarized contract of lease and the affidavits of the notary public and instrumental witnesses attesting to its due execution. The court also dismissed Carmelo's allegations of fraud surrounding the execution of the contract.

The case then shifted to a dispute over the contract of lease itself. The plaintiffs, spouses Iringan, claimed that they were not paid the full amount of the rentals and sought to have the contract declared void due to irregularities in the community tax certificates of the parties.

Atty. Gumangan explained that the withdrawals made from the Rural Bank of Rizal, Kalinga were treated as rentals for Emilia's Kitchenette. He further stated that the community tax certificates of Carmelo and Renato were not obtained at the time of signing the contract but were promised to be secured at the earliest opportunity. Renato secured his community tax certificate on January 17, 2006, being the first working day after the signing of the contract.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue in this case is whether Atty. Gumangan violated the notarial law by notarizing a contract of lease that is incomplete due to the absence and/or questionable community tax certificates (CTC) of the parties.

  2. Whether Atty. Gumangan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of the parties.

  3. Whether the presentation of community tax certificates (CTCs) qualifies as competent evidence of identity.

  4. Whether Atty. Gumangan complied with the requirement to maintain a notarial register.

  5. Whether Atty. Gumangan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law by failing to include a copy of the Contract of Lease in his Notarial Report and by not requiring the parties to exhibit their community tax certificates.

  6. Whether Atty. Gumangan's actions undermined the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and diminished public confidence in notarial documents.

  7. Whether Atty. Gumangan should be held administratively liable and what penalty should be imposed.

  8. Whether the defect in the notarization of the Contract of Lease affects its validity.

  9. Whether the negligence of the notary public in following the procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law should be attributed to the parties to the contract.

  10. Whether the administrative case against the notary public would affect the judgment rendered in the unlawful detainer case.

RULING:

  1. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that Atty. Gumangan violated the notarial law by notarizing a contract of lease that is incomplete due to the absence and/or questionable CTCs of the parties. However, the IBP recommended that the complaint for disbarment be dismissed for insufficiency of merit to sustain the plea for disbarment and/or suspension. The IBP advised Atty. Gumangan to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a lawyer.

  2. Yes, Atty. Gumangan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of the parties.

  3. No, the presentation of CTCs does not qualify as competent evidence of identity.

  4. No, Atty. Gumangan did not comply with the requirement to maintain a notarial register.

  5. Atty. Gumangan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law by failing to comply with the formalities for notarization of documents. His failure to include a copy of the Contract of Lease in his Notarial Report and not requiring the parties to exhibit their community tax certificates undermined the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and diminished public confidence in notarial documents. As a result, he is held administratively liable and is imposed the penalty of suspension of his notarial commission for two years.

  6. The defect in the notarization of the contract does not affect its validity. The absence of proper notarization would render the contract a private instrument rather than a public one, but it would still be binding between the parties.

  7. The negligence of the notary public should not be attributed to the parties to the contract. Parties appearing before a notary public are not expected to follow up on the submission of notarial reports and should not suffer the consequences of the notary public's negligence.

  8. The ruling in the administrative case against the notary public does not affect the judgment rendered in the unlawful detainer case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The execution of a contract can be established by the existence and execution of the contract itself and other supporting documents, absent clear evidence of non-execution. (Com. Almeyda's Report and Recommendation)

  • A notary public violates the notarial law if they notarize a document that is incomplete or missing required information. (Com. Almeyda's Report and Recommendation)

  • The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require notaries public to have competent evidence of identity of the parties appearing before them for notarization.

  • Competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on official identification documents or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses who personally know the individual.

  • Community tax certificates (CTCs) are not considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  • Notaries public are required to maintain a notarial register and include specific information for each notarial act, such as the date and time of the act, type of notarial act, names and addresses of the parties, and other relevant circumstances.

  • Notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities in the performance of their duties. (Agagon v. Bustamante)

  • A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties appertaining to his office. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. (Agagon v. Bustamante)

  • Compliance with the formalities of notarization is necessary to convert a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof. (Agagon v. Bustamante)

  • Lawyers are required to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Non-compliance with the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice can result in administrative liability and the imposition of penalties. (Agagon v. Bustamante)

  • The defect in notarization does not necessarily invalidate a contract but renders it a private instrument rather than a public one.

  • Parties to a contract should not be held accountable for the negligence of a notary public in following the procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law.