In Rico v. Madrazo, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liabilities of lawyers concerning notarial duties and ethical responsibilities. The Court dismissed charges against Attys. Madrazo and Tan, finding insufficient evidence of fraud or misconduct. However, Atty. Delante was found liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility due to irregularities in his notarial acts, including improper entries in his notarial register. Despite Delante’s prior disbarment in a separate case, the Court imposed additional penalties, to be recorded in his file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, to ensure a comprehensive record of his misconduct should he ever seek reinstatement.
When a Notary Public’s Negligence Undermines Legal Processes
This case arose from a complaint filed by Edgar M. Rico against Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., Antonio V. A. Tan, and Leonido C. Delante. Rico alleged fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violation of the Notarial Law, specifically concerning affidavits submitted to the Philippine Coconut Authority (PHILCOA) for a permit to cut coconut trees. The central issue revolved around whether the respondents were liable for submitting and notarizing allegedly invalid and spurious documents attached to their application.
The complainant, Edgar Rico, claimed that Attys. Madrazo and Tan submitted affidavits of non-encumbrance and marking of coconut trees to PHILCOA. These affidavits were purportedly acknowledged before Atty. Delante. Rico discovered that the document and page numbers on these affidavits corresponded to other documents in Delante’s notarial register, such as deeds of sale and secretary certificates. He argued that this discrepancy constituted fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
In response, Atty. Delante admitted that while Attys. Tan and Madrazo personally appeared before him to swear to the affidavits, his office secretary inadvertently failed to record the details in his notarial register. He argued that this omission was unintentional and without malice. Attys. Madrazo and Tan denied the allegations, asserting they had no knowledge of any falsification and that the documents were duly inspected by PHILCOA before the permits were granted. They also claimed the complaint was a retaliatory move by Rico, stemming from a previous ejectment case.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissing the complaint against Attys. Madrazo and Tan, finding no evidence of deceit or gross misconduct. The Commissioner recommended that Atty. Delante be reprimanded for his negligence as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation regarding Madrazo and Tan but reversed the recommendation for Delante, issuing a warning instead. The case then reached the Supreme Court for final action.
The Supreme Court partly adopted the IBP’s findings. The Court emphasized that in disbarment and suspension proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to prove the allegations with substantial evidence. Regarding Attys. Madrazo and Tan, the Court found that Rico failed to provide sufficient evidence that the affidavits were spurious or that Madrazo and Tan were complicit in any illegal act by Atty. Delante. Thus, the charges against them were dismissed.
However, the Court reached a different conclusion regarding Atty. Delante. The Court found that Rico presented evidence showing that Delante assigned identical notarial details to distinct documents. Delante’s defense—that his secretary failed to make the proper entries—was deemed untenable. The Court cited Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which outlines the mandatory entries required in a notarial register:
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization the following:
The Court emphasized the importance of notarization, stating, “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.” Improperly performed notarial acts can undermine public confidence in legal processes. The Court also noted that Delante violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law, and Canon 9, Rule 9.01, which prohibits delegating tasks that can only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
The Court acknowledged that Atty. Delante had been previously disbarred in Maria Angalan, et al. v. Atty. Leonido C. Delante for gross misconduct. While there cannot be double disbarment, the Court still imposed penalties for the purpose of recording them in his file with the Office of the Bar Confidant. These penalties included suspension from the practice of law for three months, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for one year. These factors would be considered should Delante ever apply for the lifting of his disbarment.
FAQs
| What was the central issue in this case? | The central issue was whether Attys. Madrazo, Tan, and Delante were liable for fraud, malpractice, violation of the Notarial Law, and gross misconduct related to affidavits submitted to the PHILCOA. The focus was on the alleged irregularities in the notarization and documentation process. |
| Why were Attys. Madrazo and Tan exonerated? | Attys. Madrazo and Tan were exonerated because the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the affidavits they submitted were spurious or that they were complicit in any wrongdoing by Atty. Delante. The burden of proof rests on the complainant in such cases. |
| What violations did Atty. Delante commit? | Atty. Delante violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by assigning identical notarial details to distinct documents, failing to make proper entries in his notarial register, and delegating his notarial function to his secretary. These actions contravened explicit provisions of the Rules. |
| What is the significance of notarization? | Notarization is a process that converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. It is invested with public interest and requires notaries to observe their duties with utmost care. |
| What penalties were imposed on Atty. Delante? | The Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for three months, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for one year. However, these penalties were primarily for record-keeping purposes due to his prior disbarment. |
| Why were penalties still imposed despite Atty. Delante’s prior disbarment? | Although there cannot be double disbarment, the penalties were imposed to create a comprehensive record of Atty. Delante’s misconduct in his file with the Office of the Bar Confidant. This record will be considered if he ever applies for the lifting of his disbarment. |
| What ethical rules did Atty. Delante violate? | Atty. Delante violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to respect the law, and Canon 9, Rule 9.01, which prohibits delegating tasks that only qualified members of the Bar can perform. |
| What does the Rules on Notarial Practice say about entries in a Notarial Register? | Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides a list of items that must be entered into the Notarial Register such as the entry number and page number; the date and time of day of the notarial act; the type of notarial act; The title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding; and the name and address of each principal. |
This case serves as a stern reminder to notaries public of the importance of adhering to the Rules on Notarial Practice and upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession. Negligence and misconduct in notarial acts can lead to severe administrative penalties, and the integrity of the legal system depends on the diligence and ethical conduct of its members. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that the public trust placed in notaries public must be honored through strict compliance with established rules and ethical guidelines.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: EDGAR M. RICO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTYS. JOSE R. MADRAZO, JR., ANTONIO V.A. TAN AND LEONIDO C. DELANTE, RESPONDENTS., A.C. No. 7231, October 01, 2019
Leave a Reply