G.R. No. A.C. No. 13588. January 23, 2023
Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr., complainants, vs. Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). They alleged that on October 30, 2004, respondent drafted, prepared, and notarized a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (DREM) in favor of Willy Sebastian involving a property they co-owned with their elder brother. Complainants claimed the DREM was executed without their knowledge and consent, and that respondent falsified it by making it appear they were of legal age when, in fact, Miguel was 15 and Miguelito, Jr. was 13 years old at the time. They further alleged respondent allowed strangers to forge their signatures on the DREM.
In his defense, respondent denied the allegations, asserting he ascertained the identities of the persons who appeared before him by requiring them to present their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) and IDs, which he photocopied. He claimed these documents confirmed their identities as Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. and that they were of legal age. Respondent also stated he merely copied information from the property’s Transfer Certificate of Title, which listed complainants as of legal age. He added that the persons were accompanied by complainants’ father, who introduced them as his sons, and by their brother Dinno, who acknowledged them as his brothers. Respondent pointed out that complainants had previously represented themselves as “of legal age” in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed in July 2003. He also noted that the amended DREM was notarized by a different lawyer, and that complainants did not question the DREM’s validity on the ground of minority in related civil cases.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable and recommended a six-month suspension from law practice and revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, recommending a one-year suspension, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public. The Board found that complainants were indeed minors at the time, and the CTCs presented were not competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as they lacked photographs and signatures.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings with modifications. The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must observe utmost care in performing duties. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary must not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present and identified through competent evidence of identity, defined as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath of credible witnesses.
The Court found respondent remiss in his duties. He failed to properly confirm the identities of the persons claiming to be the complainants. A Community Tax Certificate (CTC) is not a competent evidence of identity under the Rules, as it does not bear a photograph and signature. The IDs presented (from a university and a construction company) showed pictures of matured individuals, not then-minors Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. Respondent’s reliance on the CTCs and the representations of the father and brother was insufficient. His claim that the 2004 Rules were newly enacted and unclear was unavailing, as the requirement for competent evidence of identity was already explicit.
Respondent violated the 2004 Notarial Rules and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. For these violations, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.