G.R. No. A.C. No. 7072. July 27, 2016.
Virgilio D. Magaway and Cesario M. Magaway, Complainants vs. Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Virgilio D. Magaway and Cesario M. Magaway, heirs of the late Gavino Magaoay, sought the disbarment of Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla. They alleged that the respondent lawyer prepared, notarized, and manipulated falsified documents instrumental in the fraudulent transfer of a 10.5-hectare property originally covered by OCT P-2419. Specifically, they averred that Atty. Avecilla notarized a Deed of Sale and an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy dated December 7, 1993, which were fictitiously executed by Elena Gongon, who had already died on May 11, 1966. They also claimed he notarized documents purportedly signed by Gavino Magaoay, who died on December 3, 1963. The complainants asserted that the respondent accepted a package deal of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) from Angelito Ramiscal Sr. for preparing these documents, leading to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Titles in favor of the Ramiscals, thereby depriving the complainants of their hereditary rights. The notarization of these documents led to related criminal and civil cases. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s report, recommended the respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for one year and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla should be held administratively liable for violating his duties as a lawyer and notary public by notarizing documents executed by persons already deceased and failing to ascertain the identity of the parties appearing before him.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. It ruled that the respondent, as a notary public, failed in his duty to guard against illegal arrangements and to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the identity of the persons executing the documents. His act of notarizing documents where the purported executants were long deceased constituted gross negligence and a violation of his Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His defense that an impostor appeared before him was rejected, as he did not take proper precautions to verify identity. The notarization undermined public confidence in notarized documents. Accordingly, the Court imposed the following penalties: (1) immediate revocation of his notarial commission; (2) disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years; and (3) suspension from the practice of law for one year, with a warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.