AC 8559; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 8559. July 27, 2020
Susana G. De Guzman, Complainant, vs. Attys. Federico T. Venzon and Glenn B. Palubon, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Susana G. De Guzman was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Bulacan. On November 17, 2005, respondent Atty. Federico T. Venzon notarized a Sinumpaang Salaysay purportedly executed by complainant, waiving her rights over the land. Atty. Venzon admitted notarizing the document for an elderly couple but claimed he did not require competent evidence of their identity due to their age. The Santos siblings, assisted by respondent Atty. Glenn B. Palubon, used this document to institute a DARAB case for cancellation of complainant’s title, which resulted in the loss of her land. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for malpractice, alleging Atty. Venzon notarized the document without proper identification and Atty. Palubon knowingly used a fraudulent document. Atty. Palubon denied being the counsel of record in the DARAB case, stating he only represented the Santos siblings in a subsequent criminal case.
ISSUE
Whether respondents should be held administratively liable for their respective actions.
RULING
The Court found Atty. Federico T. Venzon GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By notarizing the Sinumpaang Salaysay without requiring competent evidence of identity from the affiants, he failed to perform his notarial duties with utmost care, undermining public confidence in notarized documents. This breach also constituted a violation of his lawyer’s oath. The penalty imposed includes: (a) suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months; (b) disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years; and (c) revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, if any. He was sternly warned against repetition.
The complaint against Atty. Glenn B. Palubon was DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. The record showed he was not the counsel of record in the DARAB case, and complainant failed to prove his involvement in using the allegedly fraudulent document.