G.R. No. A.C. No. 6655. June 21, 2011.
PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a public document and evading the payment of correct taxes. The complaint centered on two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale, both notarized by respondent on September 15, 2001. The first deed stated a consideration of ₱250,000, and the second deed stated ₱1,000,000; both involved the same parties (the heirs of Lope Caalim as vendors and spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga as vendees) and bore identical notarial details (registration, page, and book numbers).
Complainant alleged the deeds were spurious because all heirs’ signatures were falsified. She specifically claimed her sister Marivinia could not sign, was confined at Cagayan Valley Medical Center since May 3, 1999, and was diagnosed with “Substance Induced Psychosis” and “Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type,” as shown by a hospital certification dated February 6, 2004. Complainant also asserted the heirs were unaware of the deeds until recently and that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) in their names were procured by vendee Shirley Mipanga without their personal appearance, as attested by an affidavit from the Barangay Treasurer. She further claimed the deeds were used to annul a prior simulated 1979 deed of sale.
Respondent admitted preparing and notarizing both deeds but denied irregularity. He claimed that on September 15, 2001, complainant, her mother Caridad, sister Virginia, and Shirley Mipanga requested he prepare a deed for a ₱1,000,000 sale. Upon learning the owner was deceased, he asked for the heirs’ details and was told Marivinia was at home unwell. He instructed the parties to secure CTCs. Later, Caridad and Shirley returned with the CTCs. After typing the deed, Caridad took it to Claveria for signatures. Respondent later met all parties, including Marivinia and two witnesses, at the Mipanga residence, where the heirs acknowledged and ratified their signatures before him, and he notarized the first deed.
Respondent stated that after discussing tax liabilities, the parties agreed to execute a second deed with a reduced price of ₱250,000 to lower the tax burden. He reluctantly prepared and notarized this second deed, using the same notarial details as the first because it was intended to supplant it. He denied the deeds were simulated or falsified, noting they were presented as exhibits in a related civil case. He countered the claim of Marivinia’s confinement by citing a medical certificate showing her confinement from May 3 to August 10, 1999, and pointed out she was a plaintiff in an annulment case without any allegation of incapacity.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Commissioner Jose Roderick F. Fernando found respondent administratively liable for participating in an act designed to defraud the government.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua is administratively liable for misconduct in the preparation and notarization of the two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and recommendation, with modification as to the penalty.
The Court found respondent violated his duties as a notary public and lawyer. A notary public must ensure the parties appearing before them are the same persons executing the document and are personally known or identified through competent evidence. Respondent failed in this duty. His claim that Marivinia appeared and acknowledged the deed was contradicted by substantial evidence, including a hospital certification indicating her long-term confinement and mental condition, and an affidavit from the Barangay Treasurer stating the CTCs were procured without the heirs’ personal appearance. Respondent’s reliance on a medical certificate only covering 1999 did not refute her possible confinement in 2001.
Furthermore, respondent’s act of notarizing two deeds for the same property with vastly different considerations (₱250,000 and ₱1,000,000) on the same day, using identical notarial data, was highly irregular. His explanation that the second deed was meant to supplant the first for tax purposes demonstrated his participation in a scheme to reduce tax liability, which constitutes a breach of his obligation to uphold the law and avoid any falsehood. This act facilitated the execution of a document designed to evade taxes, violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood or misleading the court.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless routine; it invests a document with public faith, and notaries must observe the basic requirements with care. Respondent’s actions undermined the integrity of notarial acts and the legal profession.
PENALTY:
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. His notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He was warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.