Gemina v. Madamba

A.C. No. 6689 (August 24, 2011)

Facts:

Rizalina L. Gemina, the complainant, filed a complaint against Atty. Isidro S. Madamba, alleging deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence in his capacity as a notary public. The complainant claimed to be an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land in Laoag City, which were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in collusion with the respondent. The documents involved in the transactions were allegedly notarized by the respondent without the presence of the affiants or with their signatures forged. The specific documents in question included a Waiver of Rights & Interest, an Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee, a Deed of Adjudication & Sale, an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, and a Deed of Absolute Sale.

The complainant discovered discrepancies when she sought copies of these documents from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC). For instance, a document entered in the respondent's Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2283 was found to be an Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee executed by different individuals, and there was no record of the Waiver of Rights and Interests. Additionally, the respondent failed to submit notarial reports for the years 2003 and 2004, despite being commissioned as a Notary Public during that time.

In his defense, the respondent admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed that his secretary prepared and drafted them. He argued that due to his advanced age and health issues, he relied on his secretary for the preparation and entry of documents in his notarial register. The complainant maintained that the respondent's actions constituted dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint and, in a report, recommended its dismissal for lack of merit, stating that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, leading to the review by the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Atty. Isidro S. Madamba committed deceit, malpractice, and gross negligence in his capacity as a notary public.
2. Whether the IBP's dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit was justified based on the evidence presented.

Arguments:

• Complainant's Arguments:

  • The complainant asserted that the respondent notarized documents without the presence of the signatories and that the signatures were forged.
  • She argued that the respondent allowed himself to be used as a notary public to facilitate illegal transactions, thereby violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • The complainant contended that the respondent's actions constituted a serious breach of his duties as a lawyer and notary public.

• Respondent's Arguments:

  • The respondent admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed he was not involved in the unlawful sale of the properties.
  • He argued that his secretary was responsible for the preparation and entry of documents in his notarial register, and he relied on her due to his age and health issues.
  • The respondent requested leniency, citing his old age and health problems as mitigating factors.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP's findings and concluded that the respondent was guilty of the charges against him. The Court emphasized that the IBP's role is limited to disciplining lawyers and does not extend to determining the complainant's legal rights to the properties involved. The Court found that the respondent's admissions indicated he had notarized documents without verifying their authenticity or ensuring the presence of the signatories, which constituted a dereliction of duty.

The Court highlighted that notarization is a significant act that requires carefulness and faithfulness, and a notary public must not participate in illegal transactions. The respondent's failure to maintain accurate records and his reliance on his secretary did not absolve him of responsibility. The Court noted that the respondent's age and health could not be used as justifications for his serious lapses in duty.

As a result, the Court ordered the revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and suspended him from the practice of law for one year, taking into account his age and health as humanitarian considerations.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. A notary public must ensure the presence of signatories and verify their identities before notarizing documents.
2. The responsibility for maintaining accurate notarial records lies with the notary public, and reliance on subordinates does not absolve them of liability for misconduct.
3. The presumption of innocence for lawyers does not preclude accountability for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.