View full case

CONRADO ABE LOPEZ v. ATTY. ARTURO C. MATA

FACTS:

This case involves a complaint filed by Conrado Abe Lopez against three respondents, namely Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana, charging them with dishonesty, malpractice, and violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint alleges that Moises Legaspino left a parcel of land to his heirs, including Conrado, and that Conrado's adoptive father bequeathed a portion of the property to him through a document. Conrado alleges that he was asked by Judge Rogelio Lucmayon to execute special power of attorney documents (SPAs) for the purpose of selling the property, but he did not personally appear before the notary public for the second and third SPAs. Additionally, Conrado denies signing a Deed of Sale allegedly selling his share in the property. Atty. Abellana failed to file his notarial report for 2004, leading to the charges against the respondents. Conrado also charged Judge Lucmayon, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty. Mata with falsification of public document and use of falsified document in a separate case, but the complaint against them was dismissed. The respondents disputed the charges, with Atty. Sentillas invoking the presumption of regularity, Atty. Mata arguing that Conrado had no cause of action, and Atty. Abellana neither denying nor admitting the charges. The IBP-CBD recommended the revocation of the respondents' notarial commissions and their disqualification from reappointment, as well as suspension from the practice of law. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint on the ground of settlement, but the complaint was elevated to the Court for final action. The issue to be resolved is whether the respondents should be sanctioned for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

In a separate case, Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata were charged with violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for failing to ascertain the identity of the person named "Conrado Lopez" who appeared before them for the notarization of certain documents. The OBC recommended a six-month suspension from notarial practice for the two lawyers, which was adopted but modified by the IBP-CBD.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to ascertain the identity of the person who appeared before them.

  2. Whether Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata's failure to verify the identity of the person who appeared before them constitutes dishonesty and malpractice.

  3. Whether the lawyers, Sentillas and Mata, engaged in dishonest conduct and malpractice by not properly ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before them and the genuineness of their signatures.

  4. Whether the lawyers, Sentillas and Mata, should have their notarial commission revoked based on their infractions.

  5. Whether the failure to send copy of entries to the proper clerk of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month next following is a ground for revocation of notarial commission.

  6. Whether complainant's desistance is a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case against respondents.

  7. Whether the suspension of the lawyers from the practice of law continues despite their voluntary withdrawal or cessation from the practice.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Sentillas violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the Second Special Power of Attorney (SPA) even though the affiant only presented a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as identification, which is not considered competent evidence of identity. The use of a CTC does not comply with the requirement of at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. Thus, Atty. Sentillas did not properly verify the identity of the affiant, contrary to the rules of notarial practice.

  2. Atty. Mata also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the Third SPA with "Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership" without properly ascertaining the identity of the person who appeared before him. Atty. Mata admitted that he failed to require the affiant to sign again or ask pertinent questions out of respect for a judge who was with the affiant. However, the duty to ascertain a person's identity does not waiver or depend on the presence of a judge. Atty. Mata's failure to properly identify the affiant was a violation of the rules.

  3. The failure of both Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata to ascertain the identity of the person who appeared before them is considered tantamount to dishonesty and malpractice.

  4. The lawyers, Sentillas and Mata, engaged in dishonest conduct and malpractice by not properly ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before them and the genuineness of their signatures. By affixing their notarial seal on the instrument, they proclaimed to the world that they complied with certain requirements, which they did not.

  5. The lawyers, Sentillas and Mata, should have their notarial commission revoked based on their infractions. Their conduct eroded the public's trust in the notarial system, and these are grounds for revocation of their notarial commission.

  6. Yes, failure to send copy of entries to the proper clerk of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month next following is a ground for revocation of notarial commission.

  7. No, complainant's desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case against respondents.

  8. Based on the Certification of the Office of the Bar Confidant, the lawyers have ceased and desisted from the practice of law during their suspension. Therefore, the suspension shall remain in effect until further order from the Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notaries public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements to preserve the public's confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. Notarization of a private document converts it into a public instrument, and notaries must observe utmost care in the performance of their duties. (notarial duty)

  • A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her to attest to the contents and truthfulness of the statements therein. The duty to ascertain a person's identity does not waiver or depend on the presence of other individuals, including judges. (identity verification)

  • Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate lawyers to promote respect for law and prohibit engaging in dishonest conduct.

  • Rule XI, Section l(b) subparagraphs 7 and 8 provide grounds for revocation of a notary public's commission, including failing to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act and failing to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence.

  • Compliance with the Administrative Code of 1917, particularly Section 251, is required for notarial acts. Failure to comply with the requirement may result in disciplinary action.

  • A notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

  • The failure to send copy of entries to the proper clerk of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month next following is a ground for revocation of notarial commission.

  • Complainant's desistance does not exonerate respondents or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of complainant's interest or lack thereof.

  • Suspension from the practice of law continues even if the lawyer voluntarily withdraws or ceases from the practice.