AC 11870; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 11870, July 7, 2020
Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by Sole Heir Miguel B. Torrices, Complainant, v. Atty. Haxley M. Galano, Respondent.
FACTS
On July 23, 2012, respondent Atty. Haxley M. Galano, a commissioned Notary Public in Cagayan, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale. The deed purported to be executed by Dominga Unite Torrices (vendor) and her husband Miguel G. Torrices, selling a parcel of land to Felipe U. Tamayo. The deed was entered in Atty. Galano’s notarial register. The Heirs of Torrices filed a Petition for Disbarment, alleging the deed was fraudulent because the purported vendors, Dominga and Miguel, had died in 1974 and the early 1970s, respectively. They accused Atty. Galano of conspiring to make it appear the deceased were alive at the time of notarization. Atty. Galano failed to submit his answer to the petition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Galano violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the document without the signatories’ presence and recommended a three-year suspension from the practice of law, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Haxley M. Galano is administratively liable for violating the rules on notarial practice, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer’s Oath.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Haxley M. Galano is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s finding of liability but modified the penalty. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, vested with public interest and entitled to full faith and credit. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require the physical presence of the signatories before the notary public. Atty. Galano transgressed these fundamental rules by notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the purported vendors, Dominga and Miguel, who were already deceased at the time. He committed a falsehood by stating in the notarial acknowledgment that they personally appeared before him. Therefore, the Court found him guilty of notarizing a document in the absence of the affiants. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. Furthermore, his notarial commission, if still existing, was REVOKED, and he was PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a Notary Public.