Cruz v. Centron 442 SCRA 53 (2004)

FACTS:

1. Atty. Centron assisted a certain Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating the sale of a parcel of land (OCT No. 2186) in the name of one Joaquina Jabat. Such assistance consisted in preparing and notarizing the documents of sale.
2. The said sale is illegal because the property covered by the sale is still the subject of reconstitution and Extra-Judicial Settlement among the heirs. As a result of the illegal sale, Logdat and de la Cruz are charged with estafa through falsification of public documents. Atty. Centron took advantage of her being a lawyer to solicit the trust and confidence of the buyers of the subject parcel of land.
3. Atty. Centron is involved in the disappearance of OCT No. 2186, and she refuses to surrender the title which is in the possession of one of her relatives.
4. Hence this case of disbarment was filed by Logdat and De la Cruz against Atty. Centron
5. In her Comment, Atty. Centron denied any involvement in the preparation of the documents and in the consummation of the sale of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. She claims that her only participation in the said sale is that she was the one who notarized the deed of sale on because she was requested by the parties to notarize the same.
6. The Office of the Court Administrator held that Atty. Centron violated the provisions of Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code as well as Section G, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court when she notarized a deed of conveyance, a document which is not connected with the exercise of her official functions and duties as Ex-Officio Notary Public. Accordingly, she be fined in the amount of P2,000.00 and sternly warned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Centron should be held liable.

RULING: Yes. In the present case, we find that complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that respondent had direct and instrumental participation in the preparation of documents and the subsequent sale of the subject parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. Aside from the deed of sale covering the subject parcel of land which was notarized by respondent, no competent evidence was shown that would directly link her to the said sale.

While it may be logical to assume that Atty. Centron was the one who prepared the deed of sale since she was the one who notarized it, we cannot give evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of any evidence to support it. Moreover, complainants allegation that Atty. Centron influenced the buyers is contradicted by the sworn affidavit of Adelfa Manes, one of the buyers of the land. Manes attested to the fact that respondent did not convince nor influence them in buying the subject property. Likewise, we find no competent evidence to prove that Atty. Centron is responsible for the alleged loss of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186.

Nonetheless, we find that respondent is guilty of violating Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M and N Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court.

Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. In the present case, it is not within Atty. Centron competence, as it is not part of her official function and duty, to notarize the subject deed of sale. Respondent is guilty of abuse of authority.

In the present case, it appearing that this is respondents first offense of this nature and that she has only notarized one document, we find the OCAs recommended penalty of a fine of P2,000.00 commensurate to the offense committed.