G.R. No. A.C. 5426; April 3, 2007
Chita Pantoja-Mumar, Complainant, vs. Atty. Januario C. Flores, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Chita Pantoja-Mumar, a compulsory heir of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr., charged respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores with fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of his oath as a lawyer and notary public. The case stemmed from an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1987, which the respondent prepared and notarized, covering a three-hectare property sold to spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez. The complainant alleged the sale never materialized and the document was not notarized on the stated date. She asserted that the respondent notarized the document despite the absence of the parties, and that the thumbmark for her co-heir, Maximina Pantoja, was forged. Based on this deed, the spouses Perez obtained a Torrens title.
The respondent denied the charges, claiming the document was signed at the Pantoja ancestral home on December 29, 1987, in the complainant’s absence, upon the plea of her mother who promised to secure her signature later. He argued the complainant was notified of the sale by registered mail in March 1989 and was thus guilty of laches. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and found the respondent liable.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Januario C. Flores is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the notarization of the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. A notary public must ensure the parties to an instrument personally appear and are known to him, and that they voluntarily signed the document. The respondent failed in these duties. By notarizing a document where the parties did not personally appear before him, as evidenced by the complainant’s allegations and the vendees’ own declaration that the sale occurred on a later date (June 13, 1988), the respondent violated the Notarial Law. This act also constituted a breach of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to uphold the law and avoid dishonest conduct.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless routine; it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A lawyer’s failure to discharge his notarial duties with integrity undermines public confidence in the legal profession. While the IBP recommended a two-year suspension, the Court considered the absence of a prior disciplinary record as a mitigating factor. Consequently, the respondent’s notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from reappointment for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.