Facts:
Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owner's copy of Original Certificate of Title 4153, under the names of Spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales to be transfered to him and his wife. The next day, they tried to register the title in the complainant's name at the Assessor's Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so because the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Incorporated. On May 27, 1997, respondent Zabala notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land, executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office and in disbarment against the complainant. To clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala was negligent in his conduct as a notary public.
Ruling:
Respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It appears that there was negligence on respondent's part which, in our view, is quite serious, A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative's names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
Thus, Respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public, hisNotarial commission be REVOKED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives.
Please visit my ACCOUNTS:
No comments:
Post a Comment