G.R. No. A.C. No. 3232 September 27, 1994
ROSITA C. NADAYAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE A. GRAGEDA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosita C. Nadayag charged respondent Atty. Jose A. Grageda, a practicing lawyer and notary public, with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The charge stemmed from a “Pacto de Retro” sale notarized by respondent on January 21, 1987, wherein complainant was the vendee-a-retro. Complainant alleged she became suspicious of the presented Original Certificate of Title (OCT) due to its old and patched appearance. When she raised her concern, respondent assured her the title was valid, emphasizing his status as an attorney and his familiarity with the vendor. This OCT was later discovered to be stolen from the Register of Deeds and was confiscated, rendering the sale void as the property had already been sold to another party using the owner’s duplicate copy, causing complainant a loss of P108,000.00.
The case was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Complainant could not attend hearings due to financial constraints, and respondent could no longer be located. The investigation proceeded based on the pleadings. Respondent, in his counter-affidavit, admitted examining the title, finding it clear, and proceeding with the notarization after translating the document and confirming the parties’ understanding. The IBP found basis for discipline.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose A. Grageda violated his professional duties as a lawyer and notary public in relation to the notarization of the “Pacto de Retro” sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP, suspending respondent from the practice of law for three months. The legal logic centers on the heightened duties of a lawyer acting as a notary public. Notarization is not a mere ministerial act; it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible without further proof of authenticity. Consequently, a notary public must exercise utmost care to ensure the regularity and legality of the transaction.
Respondent transcended the role of a mere notary by offering a legal opinion on the validity of the title, thereby entering a lawyer-client relationship with the parties. In this capacity, he had a duty to provide competent and diligent advice. The presentation of an OCT, which should be in the exclusive custody of the Register of Deeds, was a glaring irregularity that should have alerted him to potential fraud. His failure to recognize this, investigate further, or advise his client of the inherent dangers constituted reckless and irresponsible conduct. This failure breached the high standards of legal proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing required of every lawyer to uphold public confidence in the legal profession. His actions demonstrated a lack of the conscientiousness required in handling transactions where his services are engaged.