Agagon vs. Bustamante

A notary public who fails to require parties to exhibit their Community Tax Certificates and omits the notarized document from his notarial report is guilty of gross negligence warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.

Complainant Sajid D. Agagon's wife won a labor case against Dominador Panglao, who owned a meatshop. Prior to the execution of the judgment, the meatshop was allegedly sold to Alessandro Panglao. To assert a third-party claim over levied properties, Alessandro submitted an Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession attaching a Deed of Sale notarized by respondent Atty. Artemio F. Bustamante.

Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Artemio F. Bustamante for malpractice and violation of the lawyer's oath. The case arose from the notarization of a "Deed of Sale" allegedly executed by Dominador Panglao and Alessandro Panglao. Complainant's wife, Jofie S. Agagon, had won a final and executory labor case against Dominador, who owned a meatshop. A writ of execution was issued, but the business was supposedly sold to Alessandro, who then operated Sandro's Meatshop. When the sheriff levied on certain properties, Alessandro, through respondent as his counsel, filed an "Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession of Third Party Claimant" before the NLRC, attaching the supposed Deed of Sale dated October 6, 2000, which respondent notarized.

Upon verification by the complainant with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Baguio City, it was discovered that the Deed of Sale was not included in respondent's notarial report. Instead, Doc. No. 375 appearing on Page 76 of Book XXXIII, Series of 2000 referred to an Affidavit executed by a certain Teofilo M. Malapit. Furthermore, a check with the Baguio City Treasurer's Office revealed that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) used by the parties in the Deed of Sale were fictitious. CTC No. 00856509 was never issued by Baguio City, while CTC No. 01276192 was issued to a certain Edilberto Bautista, not Alessandro Panglao.

In his Comment, respondent admitted preparing the Deed of Sale but claimed the parties merely dictated their CTC numbers to him from memory, and that he inadvertently failed to include the deed in his notarial report, substituting it with Malapit's Affidavit. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found these excuses unacceptable, noting that reciting CTC numbers from memory is highly suspicious and that respondent was fooled by his own clients. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the recommended penalty to one year suspension from law practice and two years revocation of notarial commission. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP's findings but reduced the penalty to six months suspension from law practice and one year revocation and disqualification from notarial commission.

• Malpractice and Violation of Lawyer's Oath: Complainant alleged that respondent acted as Notary Public to a Deed of Sale that was not included in the notarial report, which instead contained an Affidavit by another person, and that the CTCs used by the parties were fictitious.

• Inadvertence and Reliance on Clients: Respondent claimed that the parties merely dictated their CTC numbers to him from memory and that he inadvertently failed to include the Deed of Sale in his notarial report, which caused a different document (an Affidavit by Teofilo Malapit) to bear the document number assigned to the Deed of Sale.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Whether respondent is guilty of gross negligence for notarizing a document with fictitious CTCs and failing to include it in his notarial report.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Yes. Respondent violated the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to require the parties to exhibit their CTCs and omitting the deed from his notarial report.
• Appropriate Penalty: No. The IBP's recommended penalty was reduced to a suspension from the practice of law for six months and revocation/disqualification from notarial commission for one year.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest and is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity. Thus, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with elementary formalities. Respondent's acceptance of dictated CTC numbers without seeing the actual certificates, especially when reciting such numbers from memory is highly unusual, constitutes gross negligence. Furthermore, his failure to include the Deed of Sale in his notarial report, substituting it with an unrelated affidavit, casts justified doubts on the due execution and notarization of the deed, undermining the integrity of the notarization process.
• Appropriate Penalty: The Court found the modified penalty by the IBP Board of Governors excessive under the circumstances. A suspension from the practice of law for six months and revocation and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for one year was deemed the appropriate sanction for the infractions committed.

• Notarization as a Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public one, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with elementary formalities, as failure to do so undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial documents.

• "It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — This passage articulates the fundamental principle underlying the strict standards imposed on notaries public, serving as the ratio decidendi for holding respondent administratively liable.
• "A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document." — This defines the role and duty of a notary public, emphasizing the transformative effect of the notarial seal on a document's evidentiary status.

• Panganiban vs. Borromeo — Cited for the proposition that notaries public must inform themselves of the facts they intend to certify and take no part in illegal transactions, guarding against any illegal or immoral arrangements.
• Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas vs. Atty. Beradio — Cited to support the proposition that failure to include a document in the notarial report undermines the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process.
• Pantoja-Mumar vs. Atty. Flores — Cited to emphasize that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and notaries must observe utmost care in complying with formalities.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. The Court found respondent failed in this duty.
• Notarial Law and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Require a duly commissioned notary public to make proper entries in his Notarial Register and refrain from committing any dereliction that constitutes good cause for revocation or administrative sanction. Respondent violated these by failing to enter the Deed of Sale and accepting fictitious CTCs.

Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.