G.R. No. A.C. No. 4369 November 28, 1997
PIKE P. ARRIETA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOEL A. LLOSA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pike P. Arrieta sought the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 1993. Complainant averred that the respondent made it appear that vendors Edelina T. Bonilla, Jesus T. Bonilla, and Leonardo P. Toledano were parties and signatories to the deed when, in truth, all three were already dead prior to its execution. Jesus T. Bonilla died on August 22, 1992, Leonardo P. Toledano died on November 1, 1992, and Edelina T. Bonilla allegedly died on or about June 11, 1992. In his answer, respondent admitted notarizing the deed but claimed he first ascertained the authenticity of the signatures, verified the identities of the signatories, and determined the voluntariness of its execution before affixing his notarial seal. Subsequently, on September 9, 1996, complainant moved for the dismissal of his complaint, alleging it was a product of misunderstanding and that he was now convinced everything was in order. The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended dismissal, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Joel A. Llosa is administratively liable for misconduct for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale where some of the purported signatories were already deceased.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa guilty of misconduct. The Court held that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantial public interest. By law, the party acknowledging must personally appear before the notary public. Respondent certified in the acknowledgment that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano personally appeared before him on March 24, 1993, which was impossible as they had died months earlier. By affixing his notarial seal, respondent converted the private document into a public one and proclaimed to the world that all parties personally appeared before him, were known to him, executed the instrument voluntarily, and acknowledged it before him. The Court emphasized that as a lawyer and notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his duties with utmost care, and his claim of verifying identities and signatures was belied by the fact the signatories were dead. The Court rejected complainant’s withdrawal motion and the IBP’s recommendation for dismissal, stating that acting due to an alleged urgent situation is no excuse. The Court found that respondent breached his professional responsibility and committed misconduct. However, considering it was his first administrative offense, the supreme penalty of disbarment was not warranted. Accordingly, respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective immediately, with a warning that another infraction would be dealt with more severely.