Lustestica vs. Bernabe

A lawyer who repeatedly fails to observe the basic requirements of notarization, particularly by notarizing documents for persons already dead, commits gross negligence and dishonest conduct warranting disbarment and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission, especially where prior misconduct had been warned against.

Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a falsified Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant's father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of the document's supposed execution on August 5, 1994. The Notarial Law, Public Act No. 2103, then in effect, governed the duties of notaries public, requiring certification that the person acknowledging the instrument was known to the notary and entry of residence certificate details. Respondent had a prior administrative liability in A.C. No. 6963 for notarizing a document in the absence of one of the affiants, for which he was suspended from the practice of law for one year and disqualified from notarial reappointment for two years.

Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a Deed of Donation of real property purportedly executed on August 5, 1994, by her father, Benvenuto H. Lustestica, and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, as donors, in favor of Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as donees. At the time of the supposed execution, both donors were already dead—Benvenuto having died on September 7, 1987, and Cornelia on September 24, 1984.

In his Answer, respondent admitted the fact of death of both donors, as evidenced by their death certificates attached to the complaint. He claimed, however, that he had no knowledge that the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the time he notarized the Deed of Donation, and that he had exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him representing themselves as the donors.

The matter was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. The IBP found that the respondent's Acknowledgment was the best evidence that no residence certificates were presented by the alleged donors and donees, as the spaces for the residence certificate numbers, places of issue, and dates were left blank. The respondent's claim that the parties showed their residence certificates and that he instructed his secretary to indicate the details was found to be self-serving and unsupported by the evidence on record. A Municipal Trial Court had likewise found Cecilio Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of falsification of public document in connection with the same Deed of Donation.

IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr., in his Report dated August 15, 2005, found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended suspension of his notarial commission for one year, plus a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension as a lawyer. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, adopted and approved the Report, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, with the suspension to be served in succession to the penalty in CBD Case No. 04-1371.

A supervening event was the Court's decision dated February 9, 2006 in A.C. No. 6963, where the Court had revoked the respondent's notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year, for notarizing a document in the absence of one of the affiants, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The respondent filed motions for reconsideration before both the IBP and the Court, which were denied. The Court declared the case closed and terminated on January 26, 2009, after no motion for reconsideration or petition for review had been filed. On October 8, 2009, the respondent wrote to the Office of the Bar Confidant requesting clearance to resume the practice of law and to be commissioned as a notary public, claiming he had already served the penalties in both cases. The Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a Report and Recommendation that the effectivity of the suspension should commence from receipt of the Court's decision rather than the IBP resolution, and that the Court finally resolve the findings and recommendations in the present case.

• Failure to Require Residence Certificates: Complainant observed that the respondent's Acknowledgment was the best evidence that no residence certificates were presented by the alleged donors and donees, as the required entries for residence certificate numbers, places of issue, and dates were left blank.
• Judicial Admission of Dead Donors: Complainant relied on respondent's own judicial admission that the alleged donors were already dead, making it beyond reasonable doubt that they could not have personally appeared before him on August 5, 1994 to acknowledge the Deed of Donation.
• Denial of Respondent's Motion: Complainant prayed for the denial of the respondent's motion for reconsideration of the IBP Resolution.

• Lack of Knowledge of Donors' Death: Respondent claimed he had no knowledge that the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the time he notarized the Deed of Donation.
• Due Diligence in Ascertaining Identities: Respondent claimed he exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him and represented themselves as the donors under the Deed of Donation.
• Presentation of Residence Certificates: Respondent claimed the persons who appeared before him showed their residence certificates and that he instructed his secretary to indicate the details thereof.
• Excessive Penalty: Respondent moved for reconsideration of the IBP Resolution, claiming the penalty imposed for the infraction committed was too harsh.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Whether respondent committed gross negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public by notarizing a Deed of Donation whose purported donors were already dead at the time of execution.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent's conduct in notarizing the document violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the IBP's recommended penalty of one-year suspension from the practice of law and two-year disqualification from notarial reappointment was commensurate with the offense, considering this was respondent's second infraction.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Yes. Respondent was grossly negligent for failing to ascertain the identities of the affiants and for failing to require presentation of residence certificates, as evidenced by the blank spaces in the Acknowledgment and his admission that the donors were already dead.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 by falsely representing in the Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were "known to him" and by failing to observe the requirements of the Notarial Law.
• Appropriate Penalty: No, the IBP's recommended penalty was too light. Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, this being his second offense for similar notarial misconduct.

• Gross Negligence as Notary Public: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 requires the notary public to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and to enter the residence certificate's number, place, and date of issue as part of the certification. The blank spaces in the Acknowledgment clearly established that respondent did not perform this legal duty. His claim that the parties showed their residence certificates and that he instructed his secretary to indicate the details was self-serving and unsupported by the evidence. Given respondent's judicial admission that the donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed of Donation, it was beyond reasonable doubt that they could not have personally appeared before him on August 5, 1994. His admission that he did not personally know the parties further confirmed his failure to ascertain their identities.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct by falsely representing in his Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were "known to him" to be the same persons who executed the Deed of Donation, despite the fact that he did not know them and did not ascertain their identities as he attested. This violated Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. He likewise engaged in unlawful conduct by failing to observe the requirements under Section 1 of the Old Notarial Law requiring notaries public to certify that the party presented the proper residence certificate and to enter its details, violating Canon 1, which obliges lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

• Appropriate Penalty: The IBP recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year and disqualification from notarial reappointment for two years. Considering that this was already respondent's second infraction, the recommendation was too light and not commensurate with his demonstrated predisposition to undertake the duties of a notary public and a lawyer lightly. In Maligsa vs. Cabanting, a lawyer was disbarred for failing to subscribe to the sacred duties of a notary public, the Court having considered his prior misconduct and prior warning. In Flores vs. Chua, a lawyer was disbarred for deliberately making false representations that the vendor appeared before him when he notarized a forged deed of sale, with prior administrative liability considered. In Traya vs. Villamor, a notary public was perpetually disqualified from notarial commission for gross misconduct, it being his second offense. In Social Security Commission vs. Coral, a notarial commission was suspended indefinitely for notarizing documents allegedly executed by dead persons. While respondent did not appear to have participated in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross negligence in failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him, highlighted by his admission that he did not personally know the parties. Accordingly, disbarment and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission were warranted.

• Notarization as Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents would be undermined. The Court relied on this doctrine to emphasize the gravity of respondent's failure to ascertain the identities of the affiants.

• Duties of a Notary Public Under the Notarial Law — Under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, the notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and must enter the residence certificate's number, place, and date of issue as part of the certification. Failure to comply constitutes gross negligence. The Court applied this by pointing to the blank spaces in respondent's Acknowledgment as clear evidence that he did not perform his legal duty.

• Disbarment for Repeated Notarial Misconduct — A lawyer's repeated failure to observe notarial requirements, particularly notarizing documents for persons already dead, warrants disbarment and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission, especially where prior misconduct had been warned against. The Court applied this principle by escalating the penalty from the IBP's recommended one-year suspension to disbarment, given that this was respondent's second offense and he had previously been warned in A.C. No. 6963 that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage, quoted from Gonzales vs. Ramos, articulates the fundamental importance of notarization and the public interest it serves, forming the doctrinal basis for the strict standards imposed on notaries public.

• "A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients." — Quoted from Maligsa vs. Cabanting, this passage defines the standard of conduct expected of lawyers and was relied upon to justify the penalty of disbarment for respondent's repeated notarial misconduct.

• Gonzales vs. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345 (2005) — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. Followed as the foundational principle underlying the Court's analysis.

• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408 — Lawyer disbarred for failing to subscribe to the sacred duties of a notary public, with prior misconduct and prior warning considered. Followed as controlling precedent for imposing disbarment given respondent's prior offense and warning.

• Flores vs. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 465 — Lawyer disbarred for deliberately making false representations that the vendor appeared before him when he notarized a forged deed of sale, with prior administrative liability for violation of Rule 1.01 considered. Followed as analogous precedent involving falsified documents and prior misconduct.

• Traya vs. Villamor, A.C. No. 4595, February 6, 2004, 422 SCRA 293 — Notary public found guilty of gross misconduct for failing to observe proper procedure in determining identity; as second offense, perpetually disqualified from notarial commission. Followed as directly analogous precedent for second-offense notarial misconduct.

• Social Security Commission vs. Coral, A.C. No. 6249, October 14, 2004, 440 SCRA 291 — Notarial commission suspended indefinitely for notarizing complaints allegedly executed and verified by persons long dead. Followed as analogous precedent involving notarization for dead persons.

• Section 1, Public Act No. 2103 (Old Notarial Law) — Requires the notary public to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and to enter the residence certificate's number, place, and date of issue as part of the certification. Applied to find respondent grossly negligent for leaving blank the residence certificate details in the Acknowledgment and for falsely certifying that the dead donors personally appeared before him. The Old Notarial Law was applied because the notarization occurred during the law's effectivity.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to find respondent liable for unlawful conduct in failing to observe the requirements of the Notarial Law.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to find respondent liable for dishonest conduct in falsely representing in the Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were "known to him" when he did not know them and did not ascertain their identities.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The decision was rendered Per Curiam.