AC 6963; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6963. February 9, 2006. VICTORINA BAUTISTA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Victorina Bautista sought the suspension or disbarment of Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for malpractice and unethical conduct. She alleged that on January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized a “Magkasanib na Salaysay” (joint affidavit) purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainant’s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. The complainant asserted that her mother could not have executed the affidavit as she had been deceased since January 28, 1961.
In his defense, respondent denied falsifying the document, claiming he had no knowledge of Basilia’s death. He stated that in Basilia’s absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly her son-in-law, to sign above her name, indicated by the word “by.” Respondent later filed a manifestation attaching complainant’s affidavit of desistance, wherein she claimed the complaint was filed without her full understanding and that she was deceived into signing it.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document where one affiant was deceased and allowing another person to sign on her behalf.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the modified recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The Court found respondent administratively liable.
The legal logic is clear. A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the affiant before notarizing a document to verify the genuineness of the signature and attest to the truth of its contents. Respondent’s act of notarizing the joint affidavit despite the absence—and indeed, the prior death—of one affiant violated this fundamental duty under the Notarial Law and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits dishonest or deceitful conduct. By affixing his notarial seal, he misrepresented that Basilia personally appeared before him, lending the document undue credibility. Allowing Pronebo to sign for Basilia was improper, as the act of executing and swearing to an affidavit cannot be delegated; only the actual executor can personally appear before the notary. The complainant’s desistance does not terminate the proceedings, as disciplinary actions are pursued for public welfare, not private grievance. Respondent’s failure to exercise utmost diligence undermined the integrity of notarized documents and the legal profession.