AC 9676; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9676. April 2, 2018.
In Re: Decision dated September 26, 2012 in OMB-M-A-10-023-A, etc. against Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman forwarded to the Supreme Court a Decision noting that a Deed of Partition, notarized by respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan on July 23, 2003, included a signatory who had died in 2001. The Court treated this as an administrative complaint. Respondent, then a District Public Attorney, admitted notarizing the document for free for eight indigent farmers who appeared before him. He asserted he verified the document’s truthfulness and required the affiants to present their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) before they signed individually in his presence.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, citing gross negligence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this finding but increased the penalty, recommending revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.
ISSUE
Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition based on the affiants’ Community Tax Certificates.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The legal logic hinges on the applicable law at the time of notarization. The deed was notarized on July 23, 2003. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which impose stricter identification requirements, were not yet in effect. The governing law was the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act, which only required the presentation of a residence certificate (CTC) for notarization. The Court cited Mabini v. Atty. Kintanar, which held that a lawyer cannot be liable for a violation when the law in effect at the time of the act did not prohibit it.
Respondent, as a public attorney, notarized the document for indigent farmers who presented their CTCs, signed in his presence, and affirmed the document’s truth. There was no irregularity on the face of the deed to alert him to further inquiry; indeed, the Ombudsman had affirmed the deed’s validity in the related agrarian reform case. Therefore, respondent complied with the legal requirements extant in 2003 and committed no breach of his notarial duties.