A.M. No. 1019. June 30, 1977.
Benjamin J. Soto, complainant, vs. Ruben B. Lacre, respondent.

FACTS

Benjamin J. Soto filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ruben B. Lacre. The complaint alleged that on July 23, 1970, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Filomena Ablaza and her nephew, Enrico A. Mendoza. The SPA stated Mendoza was “of legal age,” but his presented residence certificate indicated he was only eighteen years old. This SPA authorized an attorney to represent the co-owners in an ejectment suit they filed against complainant Soto concerning a property in Tondo, Manila.
The ejectment suit proceeded, with Soto losing in both the city court and the Court of First Instance. His appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals at the time of this administrative case. Soto also filed a criminal case for falsification against Mendoza and others, which was dismissed. The disbarment complaint followed, with Soto contending the notarization of the SPA with an incorrect statement of age constituted malpractice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer, in his capacity as a notary public, committed negligence or malpractice warranting disciplinary action by not verifying the actual age of an affiant beyond his physical appearance and the affiant’s presented residence certificate.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated respondent Lacre. The legal logic centers on the specific duties of a notary public. Under the law governing acknowledgments (Public Act No. 2103 ), a notary’s primary duty is to ascertain the identity of the parties executing the document and to certify that they acknowledged the instrument as their free act and deed. While a notary must incidentally ascertain a party’s capacity to act, the standard is one of reasonable prudence under the circumstances.
The Court, adopting the Solicitor General’s investigation, found that respondent fulfilled this duty. Enrico Mendoza personally appeared before him. Respondent observed Mendoza’s physical stature—approximately 5’8″ and 130 pounds—which reasonably convinced him Mendoza was of legal age. There was nothing on the face of the document or in Mendoza’s demeanor to trigger suspicion of minority. The respondent compared the residence certificate numbers as stated in the document with the certificates presented, a standard practice. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests heavily on the complainant and must be established by convincing evidence. Here, no proof of negligence, malice, or corruption was presented. The complaint appeared motivated by Soto’s resentment over losing the related civil and criminal cases, rather than by a genuine ethical breach. Respondent acted under an honest mistake of fact, which does not constitute professional misconduct.