G.R. No. A.C. No. 7241; October 17, 2011
ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Florita S. Linco, widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for failure to perform his duty as a notary public. Atty. Alberto Linco was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 259001. Respondent notarized a Deed of Donation allegedly executed by Atty. Linco in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor. The notarial acknowledgment stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (the donee’s mother) personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003. However, Atty. Linco had died on July 29, 2003. Based on this deed, the Register of Deeds cancelled the original title and issued a new one in the donee’s name.
In his Answer, respondent admitted notarizing the deed on July 30, 2003. He claimed that on July 8, 2003, he was invited to Atty. Linco’s residence, where the sick but articulate Atty. Linco showed him the deed and asked him to notarize it. Respondent did not have his notarial book and seal at that time, so he instructed that the signed document be brought to his office later. On July 30, 2003, Toledo and an emissary informed respondent of Atty. Linco’s death (July 29, 2003) and asked him to notarize the deed, which he did, considering it a commitment to a fellow lawyer. During the mandatory conference, respondent admitted the deed was signed in his presence on July 8, 2003, but notarized only on July 30, 2003, after the donor’s death.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It noted that the acknowledgment portion, stating Atty. Linco personally appeared on July 30, 2003, was false. The IBP-Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to suspend respondent from law practice for one year, revoke his notarial commission, and disqualify him from reappointment as a notary public for two years. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal is administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Donation after the death of one of the parties and for making a false acknowledgment, in violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
The Court held that the records sufficiently established respondent’s guilt. He notarized the deed on July 30, 2003, knowing that Atty. Linco had died on July 29, 2003. The lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, should have put him on guard. By notarizing the document despite the affiant’s absence on the day of notarization, and by attesting in the acknowledgment that Atty. Linco personally appeared before him on July 30, 2003, respondent made a false statement. This act violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public document, entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. As a lawyer-notary, respondent had a graver responsibility to obey the laws and do no falsehood. His failure to perform his duty damaged the complainant’s rights and undermined the integrity of a notary public.
Applying the precedent in Lanuzo v. Bongon, the Court imposed the following penalties: REVOCATION of respondent’s notarial commission; DISQUALIFICATION from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years; SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately; and a WARNING that repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.