AM 1924; (December, 1978) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1924. December 29, 1978. ARTEMIO T. REALINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Artemio T. Realino charged respondent Atty. Francisco M. Villamor with malpractice as a notary public and grave misconduct. The complaint alleged that on January 21, 1978, Villamor notarized a deed of sale wherein Realino purportedly sold his house to Romeo Closa. The critical defect was that Villamor signed the acknowledgment and affixed his notarial seal on the document despite the absence of the signatures of the vendor (Realino) and the instrumental witnesses. Realino attached the unsigned but notarized deed as evidence.
In his defense, Villamor claimed that Realino and Closa urgently requested the preparation of the deed. He explained that Realino deferred signing due to an unpaid balance of P600.00 from the purchase price and the lack of his residence certificate. Trusting Realino as a close friend who promised to return later to complete the formalities and provide the notarial copies, Villamor prematurely notarized the unsigned document. The sale ultimately did not materialize as Closa failed to pay the balance, and the property was sold to another. Villamor further alleged that the complaint was filed in bad faith, motivated by his role as private prosecutor in a murder case against Realino’s son, which Realino had unsuccessfully tried to settle.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Francisco M. Villamor should be held administratively liable for notarizing a deed of sale that lacked the signatures of the parties and witnesses.
RULING
Yes, but the penalty is mitigated due to the presence of good faith and extenuating circumstances. The Court found Villamor’s version, corroborated by a sworn statement from the victim’s mother in the unrelated murder case, more credible than Realino’s. It established that Villamor acted in good faith, relying on Realino’s promise as a friend to complete the document later, and that the complaint was likely instigated by Realino’s resentment over the murder prosecution.
Nevertheless, the act constituted a violation of the notary’s fundamental duty. The Court emphasized that a notarial document is vested by law with full faith and credit, imposing on notaries public the utmost care to ensure that all formalities, particularly the signing by parties in the notary’s presence, are strictly observed. Villamor’s failure to demand the signatures before notarization was a serious oversight. However, citing precedents involving similar omissions committed in good faith, the Court deemed a reprimand sufficient. Respondent Atty. Francisco M. Villamor was REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to exercise greater care in the performance of his notarial duties, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.