View full case

ROMEO A. ALMARIO v. ATTY. DOMINICA LLERA-AGNO

FACTS:

Complainant Romeo A. Almario filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Dominica L. Agno for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the affiants. The SPA was notarized in relation to a civil case for judicial partition with delivery of certificate of title. Complainant alleged that the SPA was falsified and used to perpetrate fraud and deception against him. He claimed that one of the affiants, Francisca A. Mallari, could not have executed the SPA as she was in Japan at the time, as certified by the Bureau of Immigration. Complainant further alleged that respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of Mallari and accepting a Community Tax Certificate as proof of identity, which is no longer considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent lawyer prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and argued that she acted in good faith in notarizing the SPA. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent lawyer liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recommended a six-month suspension. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the recommendation. Respondent lawyer admitted the infraction and sought a reduction of the penalty, citing her first offense, the involvement of only one document, good faith in notarizing the SPA, the subsequent compromise agreement in the civil case, and her age. Complainant insisted on the appropriate penalty of suspension. The issue to be resolved is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on respondent lawyer.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent lawyer should be penalized for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent lawyer should be penalized for violating Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent lawyer be suspended for six months as notary public. The Court finds that respondent lawyer admitted her infraction and acknowledged her wrongdoing. However, the Court cannot completely disregard the gravity of respondent lawyer's violation, which involved notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the affiants. While respondent lawyer claimed good faith and expediency in notarizing the Special Power of Attorney, it is clear that she failed to comply with the requirement of personal appearance as prescribed by the Rules. The Court cannot condone such violation, as it undermines the integrity of notarial acts and may lead to a lack of confidence in the legal system. Therefore, a six-month suspension as notary public is warranted to ensure the faithful observance of notarial rules and the protection of the public.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers should uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. (Canon 1)

  • Lawyers should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. (Rule 1.01)

  • Lawyers should not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Rule 1.02)

  • Lawyers should not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. (Rule 1.03)

  • Lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. (Canon 10)

  • Lawyers should not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall they mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. (Rule 10.01)

  • Notaries public should comply with the rules and regulations governing notarial acts.