SANTUYO V HIDALGO

CORONA; January 17, 2005

NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty

FACTS
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty
for breach of his lawyer’s oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by
Hidalgo denying authenticity of his signature on deed of sale
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly notarized document (including
impression of his notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in technicalities surrounding notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature.
Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property.
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in
that office.
- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done.
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of junior associates on documents relating to cases handled
by the law firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to personally acknowledge documents before him as notary
public.
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another
document)
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady)
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.

ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence

HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo’s signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the
document; only that his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed the signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the
office secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register.
Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and respondent should have been more discreet and cautious.
Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance
of duties as notary public.