Isenhardt v. Real

A.C. No. 8254 (February 15, 2012)

Facts:

This case originated from a verified complaint filed by Nesa G. Isenhardt against Atty. Leonardo M. Real with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on September 9, 2004. The complaint sought the disbarment of the respondent for allegedly notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the parties involved.

The complainant alleged that on September 14, 2000, the respondent notarized an SPA that purportedly authorized her brother to mortgage her real property in Antipolo City. However, Isenhardt contended that she did not appear before the respondent on that date, as she was in Germany. To substantiate her claim, she provided a certified true copy of her German passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), which indicated her travel dates: she arrived in the Philippines on June 22, 2000, and left on August 4, 2000, returning only on July 1, 2001. As a result of the notarization, the property was mortgaged and subsequently foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.

In response, the respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the complainant was present in his office on the date in question, along with the spouses Wilfredo and Lorena Gusi, who introduced her as the financier of their business. He claimed that all parties signed the SPA in his presence and that the complainant presented the original Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the property. The respondent also mentioned that he had provided legal services to the Gusi spouses, which were financed by the complainant.

The respondent further argued that the complaint had already prescribed, as it was filed more than two years after the alleged misconduct, and contended that the SPA was not used in a manner prejudicial to the complainant since the property was later sold to her brother.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the respondent committed professional misconduct by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the parties.
2. Whether the complaint for disbarment had already prescribed under the applicable rules.
3. The implications of the respondent's actions on the integrity of notarized documents and public trust.

Arguments:

• Complainant's Arguments:

  • The complainant maintained that she was not in the Philippines on the date the SPA was notarized, providing documentary evidence to support her claim.
  • She argued that the respondent's actions led to the unlawful mortgage and foreclosure of her property, constituting gross negligence and a violation of his duties as a notary public.

• Respondent's Arguments:

  • The respondent claimed that the complainant was present during the notarization and that he followed proper procedures by verifying the identities of the parties involved.
  • He contended that the complaint was filed beyond the two-year prescription period and that the SPA did not cause any harm to the complainant since the property was later sold to her brother.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the findings and recommendations of the IBP, which found the respondent guilty of gross negligence as a notary public. The court emphasized that a notary public must ensure that the person signing a document is present and can attest to the authenticity of the signature. The court noted that the respondent's claim of the complainant's presence was contradicted by her documentary evidence, which established that she was not in the country at the time of notarization.

The court rejected the respondent's argument regarding the prescription of the complaint, clarifying that the two-year period should be counted from the date of discovery of the misconduct, which occurred after the foreclosure of the property. The court reiterated that the duties of a notary public are of public interest and that any failure to adhere to these duties undermines public trust in notarized documents.

As a result, the court revoked the respondent's notarial commission, suspended him from the practice of law for one year, and disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The court warned that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the parties involved in a notarization to verify their identities and the authenticity of their signatures.
2. The prescription period for filing complaints against lawyers for professional misconduct is two years from the date of discovery of the misconduct, not from the date of the act itself.
3. The integrity of notarized documents is crucial for public trust, and any violation of notarial duties can lead to severe disciplinary actions against the notary public.