View full case

FORTUNATO C. DIONISIO v. ATTYS. MIGUEL G. PADERNAL

FACTS:

Attorneys Miguel Padernal and Delfin Agcaoili, Jr. are facing administrative charges for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainants, Fortunato Dionisio, Jr. and Franklin Dionisio, claim that they did not personally appear before respondents when the latter notarized a Real Estate Mortgage and a Partner's Certificate. According to the complainants, their sister, Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon, who was named in the documents, was not present in the country at the time. Attorney Padernal admits to notarizing the Real Estate Mortgage and asserts that the complainants and Felicitas presented their identification cards before signing. On the other hand, Attorney Agcaoili, Jr. did not submit an answer and did not attend the mandatory conference.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found both attorneys guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules. As a result, the IBP recommended that their notarial commissions be revoked and that they be disqualified from being commissioned as notaries public for two years. Additionally, the IBP suggested suspending their practice of law for one year. Attorney Padernal filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP.

In affirming the respondents' liability, the Court modifies the penalties proposed by the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondents violated the Notarial Rules by not properly identifying the signatories to the documents before performing a notarial act.

  2. Whether the respondents violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.

  3. Whether Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. defied the authority of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and whether such defiance should be treated as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:

  1. The respondents violated the Notarial Rules by failing to properly identify the signatories to the documents before performing a notarial act. They relied on community tax certificates, which are not considered valid and competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules. Furthermore, the respondents failed to personally know the parties involved or suitably identify them through competent evidence of identity.

  2. The respondents also violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility. They failed to fulfill their oath as lawyers to uphold and obey the law and its legal processes, committed an act of falsehood, and engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.

  3. Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. is found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years and permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

  4. Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr.'s failure to comply with the IBP's written directives and to appear during the mandatory conference demonstrates his defiance towards the authority of the IBP. This defiance is treated as an aggravating circumstance.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A notary public is prohibited from performing a notarial act if the person involved as a signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. (Notarial Rules)

  • Competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who is personally known to the notary public. (Notarial Rules)

  • A community tax certificate or cedula is not considered a valid and competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules. (Jurisprudence)

  • A lawyer's violation of the Notarial Rules constitutes a violation of the CPR, specifically Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 (upholding the constitution, obeying the laws, and promoting respect for law and legal processes, and not engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 (owing candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, and not doing any falsehood or misleading the court). (CPR)

  • Penalties for violations of the Notarial Rules may include suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a certain period. (Jurisprudence)

  • Notaries public must comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The authority of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) must be respected and disobedience towards its directives can be treated as an aggravating circumstance.