G.R. No. A.C. No. 4545. February 5, 2014
CARLITO ANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Carlito Ang, along with other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition on May 31, 1991, involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-2. Ang was allotted a share of 2,003 square meters. However, when he attempted to secure a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in his name, he discovered that the original TCT had been cancelled and new TCTs were issued in the names of other individuals. Ang alleged that respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana participated in forgeries and falsifications by preparing and notarizing an Affidavit of Loss and a Deed of Absolute Sale that facilitated the transfer. The Deed of Absolute Sale was purportedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, but Ang presented a certification showing her signature was forged. The Affidavit of Loss was allegedly executed by Candelaria on April 29, 1994, despite her death on March 26, 1991. Additionally, respondent, acting as attorney-in-fact for the other heirs under a Special Power of Attorney, sold the subject lot to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. on October 10, 1995, while a civil case involving the property was pending. In his defense, respondent argued that the administrative complaint was a tool to pressure him and his clients in the pending civil case, and that Ang had admitted in that case he was not an heir of Candelaria but the son of her common-law husband. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found respondent administratively liable and imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is administratively liable for violations of his notarial duties and ethical obligations as a lawyer.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution but modified the basis for liability. The Court found no ethical violation in respondent’s act of selling the property as attorney-in-fact, as the notice of lis pendens on the specific lot sold had been cancelled, and insufficient evidence existed to prove the Deed of Absolute Sale was antedated. However, respondent violated his notarial duties under the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103 ) by notarizing an Affidavit of Loss allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 29, 1994, without requiring her personal presence, despite her death in 1991. Respondent admitted he did not know Candelaria personally, confirming her absence during notarization. Notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest, requiring the personal appearance of the signatory to verify genuineness and voluntariness. By failing to ensure this, respondent undermined public confidence in notarial documents. The Court emphasized that notaries public must perform their duties with utmost care and not delegate notarial functions to unqualified persons. For this violation, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years was upheld. The Court warned that repetition of similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.