Linco vs. Lacebal

A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.

Complainant Atty. Florita S. Linco is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco, the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements located at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B, C & D, Valley View Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 259001. Respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal was a notary public for Mandaluyong City. The dispute concerns respondent's notarization of a deed of donation allegedly executed by the late Atty. Linco in favor of a minor, Alexander David T. Linco, as represented by Lina P. Toledo, the mother of the donee.

Complainant Atty. Florita S. Linco is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco, the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements consisting of 126 square meters, located at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B, C & D, Valley View Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 259001. Respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal, a notary public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation allegedly executed by complainant's husband in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor. The notarial acknowledgment stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo, mother of the donee, allegedly personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003, despite the fact that complainant's husband died on July 29, 2003. By virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 2005 and issued a new TCT No. 29251 in the name of Alexander David T. Linco.

In his Answer, respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged the deed of donation. He narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco, through an emissary in the person of Claire Juele-Algodon, to see him at his residence in Mandaluyong City. Respondent was informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to discuss something with him. Atty. Linco appeared physically weak and sickly but was articulate and in full control of his faculties. Atty. Linco showed him the deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the donation, and asked him a favor of notarizing the deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses. However, since respondent had no idea that he would be notarizing a document, he did not bring his notarial book and seal with him. He instead told Algodon and Toledo to bring to his office the signed deed of donation anytime at their convenience so that he could formally notarize and acknowledge the same.

On July 30, 2003, Toledo and Algodon went to respondent's law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had passed away on July 29, 2003. Respondent was then asked to notarize the deed of donation. Respondent admitted to having consented as he found it to be his commitment to a fellow lawyer. Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation, which was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003. During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7, 2005, it was established that indeed the deed of donation was presented to respondent on July 8, 2003. Respondent likewise admitted that while he was not the one who prepared the deed of donation, he performed the notarization of the deed of donation only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died.

The IBP-CBD observed that respondent wanted it to appear that because the donor appeared before him and signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, it was just ministerial duty on his part to notarize the deed of donation on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died. The IBP-CBD pointed out that respondent should know that the parties who signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003 binds only the signatories to the deed and it was not yet a public instrument. Moreover, since the deed of donation was notarized only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died, the acknowledgment portion of the said deed of donation where respondent acknowledged that Atty. Linco "personally came and appeared before me" is false. This act of respondent is also violative of the Attorney's Oath "to obey the laws" and "do no falsehood."

• Violation of Notarial Law and Rights: Complainant claimed that respondent's reprehensible act in connivance with Toledo was not only violative of her and her children's rights but also in violation of the law, and that respondent's lack of honesty and candor is unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.
• No New Grounds for Reconsideration: In her Compliance, complainant maintained that respondent has not stated anything new in his motion for reconsideration that would warrant the reversal of the recommendation of the IBP, and that respondent violated the Notarial Law and is unfit to continue being commissioned as notary public.

• Commitment to a Fellow Lawyer: Respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged the deed of donation, claiming that he consented to notarize the deed after being informed of Atty. Linco's death because he found it to be his commitment to a fellow lawyer.
• Prior Personal Appearance: Respondent argued that since the donor appeared before him and signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, it was just ministerial duty on his part to notarize the deed of donation on July 30, 2003.

• Violation of Notarial Law and CPR: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized a deed of donation a day after the donor had died, with an acknowledgment stating that the donor personally appeared before him on the date of notarization.
• Imposable Penalty: Whether the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years is proper.

• Violation of Notarial Law and CPR: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer when he made a false statement in the notarial acknowledgment, attesting that Atty. Linco personally appeared before him on July 30, 2003, when the latter had died on July 29, 2003.
• Imposable Penalty: Yes. The penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years was imposed, following the precedent in Lanuzo vs. Atty. Bongon.

• Violation of Notarial Law and CPR: The records sufficiently established that Atty. Linco was already dead when respondent notarized the deed of donation on July 30, 2003, and respondent admitted that he knew of this fact. The Court noted that respondent notarized the document after the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he was allegedly asked to notarize the deed of donation. The sufficient lapse of time from the time he last saw Atty. Linco should have put him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with the notarization. The fact that respondent previously appeared before him in person does not justify his act of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day the document was notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment, respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003, yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on that date because he died on July 29, 2003. Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. The Court reiterated that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. 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 to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. This responsibility is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer, as a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainant's rights over the property subject of the donation but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public. He should, therefore, be held liable for his acts, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
• Imposable Penalty: The Court deemed it proper to impose the same penalty as in Lanuzo vs. Atty. Bongon, where the respondent, having failed to discharge his duties as a notary public, was meted the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

• Sanctity of Notarization — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. The Court applied this doctrine in finding respondent liable for notarizing a deed of donation after the donor's death, which undermined the integrity of a notary public.
• Duty of a Notary Public — 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 to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The Court applied this rule to hold that respondent's prior personal appearance of the donor on July 8, 2003 did not justify notarizing the deed on July 30, 2003, when the donor was already dead and could not have personally appeared before him.
• Graver Responsibility of Lawyer-Notaries — A graver responsibility is placed upon a lawyer who is a notary public by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. He is mandated to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

• "Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct." — This passage articulates the core principle underlying the Court's ruling, emphasizing the sacred nature of the notarial oath and the duty of notaries public to observe it faithfully.
• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document; thus, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face." — This passage defines the doctrinal significance of notarization and explains why the public must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public.
• "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 to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein." — This passage states the canonical rule on the duty of a notary public, which respondent violated by notarizing the deed of donation after the donor's death.

• Lanuzo vs. Atty. Bongon, A.C. No. 6737, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 214 — Controlling precedent for the penalty imposed; the respondent in that case, having failed to discharge his duties as a notary public, was meted the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.
• Follosco vs. Atty. Mateo, 466 Phil. 305, 314 (2004) — Cited for the principle that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
• Atty. Dela Cruz vs. Atty. Zabala, 485 Phil. 83, 88 (2004) — Cited for the rule that 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 to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
• Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8, 15-16 (2002) — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
• Gokioco vs. Atty. Mateo, 484 Phil. 626, 633 (2004) — Cited for the principle that a graver responsibility is placed upon a lawyer who is a notary public by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.

• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The Court applied this provision in finding that respondent made a false statement in the notarial acknowledgment when he attested that Atty. Linco personally appeared before him on July 30, 2003, when the latter had died on July 29, 2003.
• Notarial Law — The Court found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law for notarizing a deed of donation without the personal appearance of the donor on the date of notarization, and for making a false acknowledgment.
• Attorney's Oath — The Court held that respondent's act of making a false acknowledgment was violative of the Attorney's Oath "to obey the laws" and "do no falsehood."

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.