G.R. No. A.C. No. 3441. August 11, 2005
JUDGE GERVACIO A. LOPENA, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CABATOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Judge Gervacio A. Lopena filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos for serious breach of professional ethics and grave misconduct. The first charge alleged that respondent notarized a Deed of Donation on June 24, 1981, purportedly executed by Crispina Panis, who had already died on January 15, 1981. The second charge accused respondent of showing grave disrespect to the courts by leading a parade/rally on September 21, 1984, to protest complainant’s handling of criminal cases against respondent’s relatives.
In his defense, respondent claimed he had been away from his birthplace since 1958 and did not personally know Crispina Panis. He asserted he was misled by Gregorio Ricafort into notarizing the document with an impostor. Regarding the rally, he contended it was a political protest organized by groups, not personally by him. The case underwent prolonged proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, with complainant eventually moving for judgment based on the pleadings after his witnesses died.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos should be held administratively liable for notarizing a deed of donation executed by a deceased person and for allegedly conducting a disrespectful rally against a judge.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable for the notarization charge but not for the rally charge. On the first charge, the Court emphasized the sacred duties of a notary public. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who personally appear before him to attest to the contents and truth of the statements therein. This requirement is mandatory to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the document is the party’s free act.
Respondent’s defense that he was deceived by an impostor and did not know the deceased donor was unavailing. His own admission revealed the document was already signed when presented to him, and he failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the identity of the acknowledging party. By notarizing a document for a person already deceased, he violated his notarial duties. Consequently, the Court revoked his notarial commission (if still existing) and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Regarding the second charge for conducting the rally, the Court ruled it was not sufficiently substantiated. The evidence did not adequately prove respondent’s personal and direct responsibility for the alleged disrespectful conduct. Thus, no liability attached for this charge. Respondent was warned that a repetition of the notarial violation would be dealt with more severely.