This case involves a complaint of disbarment filed against a lawyer, Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale even though one of the signatories, Marina C. Gonzales, did not personally appear before him. The Commission on Bar Discipline and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ruled against Atty. Ramos, suspending him. The court affirmed this ruling, noting that a notary public has a duty to verify the identity of those signing documents and cannot notarize documents for parties who did not appear in person. By notarizing the deed despite Gonzales' non-appearance, Atty. Ramos failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public
This case involves a complaint of disbarment filed against a lawyer, Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale even though one of the signatories, Marina C. Gonzales, did not personally appear before him. The Commission on Bar Discipline and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ruled against Atty. Ramos, suspending him. The court affirmed this ruling, noting that a notary public has a duty to verify the identity of those signing documents and cannot notarize documents for parties who did not appear in person. By notarizing the deed despite Gonzales' non-appearance, Atty. Ramos failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public
This case involves a complaint of disbarment filed against a lawyer, Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale even though one of the signatories, Marina C. Gonzales, did not personally appear before him. The Commission on Bar Discipline and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ruled against Atty. Ramos, suspending him. The court affirmed this ruling, noting that a notary public has a duty to verify the identity of those signing documents and cannot notarize documents for parties who did not appear in person. By notarizing the deed despite Gonzales' non-appearance, Atty. Ramos failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public
This case involves a complaint of disbarment filed against a lawyer, Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale even though one of the signatories, Marina C. Gonzales, did not personally appear before him. The Commission on Bar Discipline and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ruled against Atty. Ramos, suspending him. The court affirmed this ruling, noting that a notary public has a duty to verify the identity of those signing documents and cannot notarize documents for parties who did not appear in person. By notarizing the deed despite Gonzales' non-appearance, Atty. Ramos failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Topic: Acknowldgment
GONZALES VS RAMOS A.C. No. 6649 /June 21, 2005 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Facts: Complaint for disbarment filed by Marina C. Gonzales (P) against Atty. Calixto B. Ramos (C) because of the latters alleged misconduct in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the complainant. Cs allegation: there was a sale wherein, C and his husband allegedly sold a piece of land with a building thereon to spouses Henry and Mila Gatus. Due to the execution of the Deed of Sale, the Sps Ramos TCT was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of Sps Gatus. C maintained that they (C and his husband) never appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the Deed of Sale. Ps defense: At first, he was hesitant to notarize the document because he did not see the complainant sign the same, but due to Franciscos insistence and knowing them personally, he eventually notarized the deed. Respondent compared the signatures of Marina C. Gonzales on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other signatures in his files, the spouses Gonzales being his clients from way back. Convinced that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed the signature of complainant Marina C. Gonzales, respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale on March 27, 1996. During the mandatory conference before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, the respondent admitted that the complainant never appeared before him to affirm the genuineness and authenticity of her signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 27, 1996. Commission on Bar Discipline and IBP ruled against C (suspension). Decision: Affirmed CBP and IBP. 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 the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the
acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary public, is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.[14] By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[15] The respondents act of notarizing the acknowledgment of a deed of sale even if one of the signatories therein did not personally appear before him clearly falls short of the yardstick of accuracy and fidelity referred to above. The respondent himself admitted his professional shortcomings when he said that all he did to ascertain the authenticity of the signature of the complainant was to compare her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other signatures on pleadings on file with him. Such conduct of the respondent runs contrary to the express wordings of the acknowledgment in the deed of sale which provides: The respondents act of notarizing the document despite the nonappearance of one of the signatories should not be countenanced. His conduct, if left unchecked, is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord to notarized documents. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of law.
As a lawyer, respondent breached the Code of Professional
Responsibility. By notarizing the questioned deed, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. [17] He also committed falsehood and misled or allowed the Court to be misled by any artifice.[18]
