A.C. No. 4958; April 3, 2003
FIDEL D. AQUINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR MANESE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fidel D. Aquino, a tenant of a land owned by the late Luis M. Cardona, charged respondent Atty. Oscar Manese with falsification of a public document. Aquino alleged that respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994, which was purportedly executed by three heirs of Luis Cardona, including Lilia D. Cardona. However, Lilia Cardona had already died on November 25, 1990, or nearly four years before the date of the deed. The sale was in favor of Ma. Cita C. Perez, whose parents had previously unlawfully taken possession of the land, a matter previously litigated up to the Court of Appeals. Aquino, whose tenancy rights were affected by the sale, attached supporting documents, including Lilia Cardona’s death certificate and an NBI report finding the signature on the deed to be forged.
In his Comment, respondent asserted that Aquino lacked the personality to complain as he had no legal claim over the land. He argued that no interested party had complained about the sale and that, as a notary public, he was not expected to personally know every individual appearing before him for notarization. He claimed he was merely performing his duty when he notarized the document.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Oscar Manese violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a deed where one of the signatories was already deceased, thereby failing to verify the identities and genuineness of the signatures of the parties appearing before him.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court upheld the IBP Board of Governors’ findings but modified the penalty. The Court first dismissed respondent’s claim regarding Aquino’s lack of personality to sue, noting that a disbarment proceeding may be initiated by any person under the Rules of Court, and Aquino, as a tenant whose rights were disturbed, had a direct interest.
On the merits, the Court found respondent grossly negligent in performing his notarial duties. The death certificate conclusively proved Lilia Cardona’s death years before the notarization, and the NBI report confirmed the signature was forged. In the acknowledgment of the deed, respondent affirmed that all vendors, including Lilia, personally appeared before him. Yet, in his defense, he contradicted this by stating he was not expected to know the persons appearing before him. This “jaunty indifference” constituted a deplorable failure to observe the basic duties of a notary public.
The Court emphasized the profound public interest in notarization. It is not a mere routine act but one that converts a private document into a public document, entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must exercise utmost care to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the parties are the same individuals who executed the document and personally appeared before him. By notarizing the deed without this verification, respondent undermined public confidence in notarial documents. This act breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and avoid dishonest or deceitful conduct.
Consequently, the Court REVOKED respondent’s notarial commission (if still extant), DISQUALIFIED him from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years, and SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately.