A.C. No. 5602, February 3, 2004
Hilda D. Tabas vs. Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin

FACTS

Complainant Hilda D. Tabas sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin for forgery. Tabas had a real estate mortgage over a property owned by Anastacia Galvan. Subsequently, a person named Lilia Castillejos falsely representing herself as Tabas appeared before Atty. Mangibin. Castillejos requested the preparation and notarization of a “Discharge of Real Estate Mortgage” to cancel the earlier encumbrance. Respondent prepared the deed and notarized it, relying solely on a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) presented by Castillejos. The mortgagor then mortgaged the property anew to a bank.
Upon discovery, Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature was forged. Respondent, however, did not assist her and even threatened a countersuit. In his defense, Mangibin admitted the document was forged but claimed he acted in good faith, without knowledge of Castillejos’s fraudulent intent. He argued that requiring only a CTC was his standard practice and that verifying identities beyond that was beyond his duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Mangibin is liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a public function imbued with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must observe utmost care, ensuring the person who signed the document is the same person who personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth.
The Court ruled that Mangibin failed to exercise even ordinary care. By attesting in the acknowledgment that “Hilda A. Tabas” personally appeared before him, he warranted that he knew her and verified her identity. His reliance on a single CTC was grossly negligent, given how easily such certificates can be obtained and the significant legal effect of notarizing a discharge of mortgage. His failure to require other identification or to question the glaring discrepancy between the signatures on the original mortgage and the discharge—a document he himself prepared—demonstrated reckless disregard for his duties. This negligence caused grave injury to the complainant and undermined public confidence in notarial documents, violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Consequently, the Court revoked Mangibin’s notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.