01/03/2009 [ tribune.net.ph ]
The Supreme Court (SC) meted a three-month suspension to a lawyer it found to have been negligent in performing his duties as notary public and causing the loss of property.
In its resolution, the high court through Associate Justice Arturo Brion said the negligence of lawyer Narciso Padiernos as a notary public eroded the public’s confidence in the notarial system.
“The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act it embodies,” the SC said.
The administrative case against Padiernos arose from a complaint filed by Zenaida Gonzales on May 12, 2003 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) after she lost 141,497 square meters of mango land in Jaen, Nueva Ecija as a result of respondent’s negligence in notarizing documents.
The tribunal adopted the recommendation of the IBP to suspend him from the practice of law for three months and the revocation of his notarial commission for violating his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public, as well as for the grave injustice inflicted on the complainant.
In its report, the IBP found Padiernos guilty of negligence for his failure to faithfully comply with the notarial rules when he notarized three documents. He did not know the complainants personally, much so demand proof of identity from persons who appeared before him and executed and authenticated the three documents.
The IBP observed that had respondent followed the rules, the fraudulent transfer of complainant’s property could have been prevented.
Notarial rules provide that a notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present to attest that he or she is the person named in the document and that he voluntarily executed the same.
In her complaint, Gonzales said that while she was out of the country, Padiernos notarized on separate occasions three documents: a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979 that transferred her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija to Asterio, Estrella and Rodolfo – all surnamed Gonzales; a Subdivision Agreement dated Sept. 7, 1988 which divided her property among the same persons; and an affidavit of non-tenancy dated March 3, 1988 which certified that her property was not tenanted.
The three documents carried forged signatures and were falsely certified by Padiernos that Gonzales personally appeared before him and that she was known to him as the same person who executed the document.
Estrella Gonzales was also out of the country when the documents were notarized and the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales testified that the Deed of Absolute Sale and Subdivision Agreement were spurious as this was without her husband’s participation.
Although Padiernos admitted notarizing the document he tried to evade liability by citing a supposed ruling of the high court that “it is not necessary to know the signatories personally, provided that the document was signed in the presence of the Notary, alleging that they are the same persons who signed the names.” Benjamin B. Pulta
__________________________________________________________________________
