AC 5645; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.C. No. 5645; July 2, 2002
Case Parties: ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
FACTS
1. Complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales sold a lot in November 1990 but discovered in September 1991 that the title had been transferred to her brother, Manuel A. Bernardo, based on a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by her in favor of Manuel on September 5, 1990.
2. The said Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on October 1, 1990, and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990.
3. Complainant denied having signed the deed. The NBI Questioned Documents Division found that the signature on the deed did not match her genuine signatures.
4. The NBI filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ramos for violation of the Notarial Law (Act No. 2711). In his Answer, respondent admitted notarizing the document but admitted he failed to enter it in his Notarial Registry Book. He claimed he signed it inadvertently, relying on Manuel’s assurances it was only for a loan between siblings.
5. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended dismissal due to complainant’s failure to appear and prosecute. The IBP Board of Governors approved the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos should be disciplined for his actions related to the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the IBP’s recommendation and imposed sanctions on respondent.
1. Violation of Notarial Law: The Court found respondent violated the Notarial Law by failing to record the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial register, which he admitted. The law mandates a notary public to keep a notarial register and record all official acts. Failure to do so is a ground for revocation of his commission.
2. Duty and Importance of Notarization: Notarization converts a private document into a public document, giving it evidentiary value. A notary public must verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the parties personally appeared. Respondent’s claim of acting out of sympathy for a kababayan is not a valid excuse and demonstrates a lack of due diligence and respect for the solemnity of the office.
3. Appropriate Penalty: While respondent’s negligence was serious, disbarment was deemed too severe. The Court imposed:
a. Revocation of his notarial commission (if still existing) and disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public.
b. Suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.