Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7241
THIRD DIVISION
Present:
- versus
ATTY.
JIMMY D. LACEBAL,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
In his Answer,6
respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged a deed of donation
executed by the
donor, Atty. Linco, in favor of his
son, Alexander David T. Linco, as represented by Lina P. Toledo.
Respondent narrated that on July 8,
2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco, through an
emissary in the person of
Claire Juele-Algodon (Algodon), to see him at his residence located at Guenventille II D-31-B, Libertad Street,
Mandaluyong City. Respondent was
then informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to
discuss something
with him.
Respondent pointed out that Atty. Linco appeared to be physically weak and sickly, but was
articulate and in full
control of his faculties. Atty. Linco
showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the
donation on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died. The IBP-CBD pointed out that respondent should
know
that the parties who signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, binds
only the signatories to the deed and it
was not yet a public instrument.
Moreover, since the deed of donation was notarized only on July 30, 2003, a
day
after Atty. Linco died, the acknowledgement portion
of the said deed of donation where respondent
acknowledged that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before me is false.
This act of respondent is
also violative of the
Attorney's Oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood.
In her Compliance,13
complainant maintained that respondent has not stated anything new in his
motion for
reconsideration that would warrant the reversal of the
recommendation of the IBP. She maintained that
respondent violated the Notarial Law and is unfit to continue being commissioned as
notary public; thus, should
be sanctioned for his infractions.
RULING
There
is no question as to respondent's guilt. The records sufficiently established
that Atty. Linco was already
dead when respondent
notarized the deed of donation on July 30, 2003. Respondent likewise admitted
that he
knew that Atty. Linco died a day before he notarized the deed of donation. We take note that respondent
notarized the document after the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he was allegedly asked to
notarize the deed of donation. The sufficient lapse of time
from the time he last saw Atty. Linco should have
put
him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with the notarization of the deed
of donation.
However,
respondent chose to ignore the basics of notarial
procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need
of a colleague. The fact
that respondent previously appeared before him in person does not justify his
act of
notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on
the very day the document was notarized.
In the notarial
acknowledgment of the deed of donation, respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came
and appeared before him on July 30,
2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have
appeared before him on
July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003.
Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violated
Rule 10.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
We
will reiterate that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat
is sacrosanct.14 Respondent 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 truth of what are stated therein.15
Time
and again, we have repeatedly reminded notaries public of the importance
attached to the act of
notarization. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. Notarization converts a
private document into a public
document; thus, making that document admissible in evidence without further
In
Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,19 respondent having failed to
discharge his duties as a notary public, the revocation
same penalty.
WHEREFORE,
for breach of the Notarial Law and
Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial
Let
copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and all courts all over
the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal
records of
the respondent.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice