G.R. No. A.C. No. 6689; August 24, 2011
RIZALINA L. GEMINA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rizalina L. Gemina, alleging to be an heir of the registered owner of parcels of land in Laoag City, charged respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba with deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence. She claimed the lands were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio with the respondent’s connivance, and that the respondent notarized the transaction documents either without the presence of the affiants or over forged signatures. The documents included a Waiver of Rights & Interest, an Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee, a Deed of Adjudication & Sale, an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, and a Deed of Absolute Sale. The complainant’s verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC, Isabela, revealed multiple irregularities in the respondent’s notarial records: (1) A Waiver document referenced a specific notarial entry (Doc. No. 2283, etc.), but the OCC record for that entry was an Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee marked “cancelled” without explanation, and the respondent had failed to submit his notarial reports for 2003 and 2004; (2) A Deed of Adjudication and Sale (Doc. No. 2263) had no copy on file with the OCC, with the register merely marked “without copy”; (3) An Affidavit of Non-Tenancy referenced a Deed of Sale (Doc. No. 2212, Series of 2002), but the OCC record for that entry was actually an Affidavit of Discrepancy marked “cancelled.” Certifications from Clerk of Court Artemio H. Quidilla, Jr. confirmed these discrepancies and the lack of submitted reports/copies. In his comment, the respondent admitted notarizing the subject documents but denied involvement in the unlawful sales. He claimed his secretary prepared and entered the documents in the notarial register, and his participation was limited to affixing his signature due to his old age (82) and insulin-dependent condition, begging for leniency. The IBP Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding the complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to support her allegations of heirship and irregular notarization. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba is administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the irregularities in his notarial practice and his own admissions.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s dismissal. The Court held that the IBP’s function is limited to disciplining lawyers and it erred in requiring the complainant to prove her heirship, as this pertains to the merits of a property dispute outside its authority. Liability was established primarily through the respondent’s own admissions and the documented irregularities. The respondent admitted he merely signed documents prepared and entered by his secretary without personally verifying them, citing his age and health. The Court found this a clear abdication of his duties as a notary public. The transcript of the IBP hearing further revealed the respondent could not recall the details of the documents he notarized. These acts constitute violations of the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require a notary to ensure the signatories’ personal appearance, properly identify them, and faithfully record all acts in an orderly notarial register. By completely delegating these core duties to his secretary and notarizing documents without proper verification, the respondent committed gross negligence and engaged in misconduct. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but imbues documents with public faith, and a lawyer’s carelessness in this duty warrants severe sanction. Considering the seriousness of the violations, disbarment would be warranted. However, taking into account the respondent’s advanced age and sickness for humanitarian reasons, the Court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law. It also ordered the revocation of his notarial commission (if still existing) and his indefinite suspension from reappointment as a Notary Public.