JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015
“x x x.
The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this court previously explained:
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.45 (Citation omitted)
X x x.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reiterates that acknowledgments require the affiant to appear in person before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 states:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.—"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 2(b) states further:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions.—. . .
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document—
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her duty under the law. In Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials,47 we stated that "[i]t is obvious that the party acknowledging must . . . appear before the notary public[.]"48 Furthermore, this court pronounced that:
[a] document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.49 (Citations omitted)
Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.
It is possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be in the document submitted by the vendee for notarization. In addition, the possibility of forgery became real.
In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real,50 Linco v. Atty. Lacebal,51 Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,52 and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe,53 the respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo, and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the persons executing those documents were already dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization.54 In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of disqualification as notaries for two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
In the recent case of De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit,55 the respondent lawyer notarized 22 public documents even without the signatures of the parties on those documents.56 This court suspended the respondent-lawyer from the practice of law for one (1) year and perpetually disqualified her from being a notary public.57
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." He contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment. As early as September 19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to comment on the Complaint lodged against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than seven years after this court’s order. Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.
The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 1158 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts[.]"
Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 159 of the Rules of Court, "wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court" constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Cefra’s disobedience to this court’s directive issued in 2001 was not explained even as he eventually filed his Comment in2008. Clearly, his disobedience was willful and inexcusable. Atty. Cefra should be penalized for this infraction.
In Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,60 this court suspended a lawyer who refused to comply with this court’s directives to submit a Rejoinder and to comment on complainant’s Manifestation.61 The lawyer complied with the order to file a Rejoinder only after being detained by the National Bureau of Investigation for five (5) days.62 Likewise, she complied with the order to comment through a Manifestation filed after four (4) months without explaining her delay.63 This court found that the lawyer’s "conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. . . . [Her] obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders ‘not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.’"64
We thus find that the penalty recommended against Atty. Cefra should be modified to take into account all his acts of misconduct.
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with an order from this court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
X x x .”
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015
“x x x.
Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the document be present. Otherwise, their participation with respect to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty.
X x x.
The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this court previously explained:
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.45 (Citation omitted)
X x x.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reiterates that acknowledgments require the affiant to appear in person before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 states:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.—"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 2(b) states further:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions.—. . .
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document—
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her duty under the law. In Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials,47 we stated that "[i]t is obvious that the party acknowledging must . . . appear before the notary public[.]"48 Furthermore, this court pronounced that:
[a] document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.49 (Citations omitted)
Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.
It is possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be in the document submitted by the vendee for notarization. In addition, the possibility of forgery became real.
In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real,50 Linco v. Atty. Lacebal,51 Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,52 and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe,53 the respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo, and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the persons executing those documents were already dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization.54 In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of disqualification as notaries for two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
In the recent case of De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit,55 the respondent lawyer notarized 22 public documents even without the signatures of the parties on those documents.56 This court suspended the respondent-lawyer from the practice of law for one (1) year and perpetually disqualified her from being a notary public.57
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." He contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment. As early as September 19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to comment on the Complaint lodged against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than seven years after this court’s order. Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.
The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 1158 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts[.]"
Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 159 of the Rules of Court, "wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court" constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Cefra’s disobedience to this court’s directive issued in 2001 was not explained even as he eventually filed his Comment in2008. Clearly, his disobedience was willful and inexcusable. Atty. Cefra should be penalized for this infraction.
In Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,60 this court suspended a lawyer who refused to comply with this court’s directives to submit a Rejoinder and to comment on complainant’s Manifestation.61 The lawyer complied with the order to file a Rejoinder only after being detained by the National Bureau of Investigation for five (5) days.62 Likewise, she complied with the order to comment through a Manifestation filed after four (4) months without explaining her delay.63 This court found that the lawyer’s "conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. . . . [Her] obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders ‘not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.’"64
We thus find that the penalty recommended against Atty. Cefra should be modified to take into account all his acts of misconduct.
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with an order from this court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
X x x .”
