Lee vs Tambago 544 SCRA 393 (2008)

FACTS:

1.      Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a wil.

2.      The will was alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the absence of notation of the Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit.

3.      In addition to such, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA).

4.      Respondent refuted that all allegations were falsely given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and had complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case against him filed by complainant in the Ombudsman that did not prosper.

5.      However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of NCAA.

6.      In a resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the decision of which found respondent guilty of violations of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

7.      Thus, the investigating commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of respondent for a period of three months.

8.      The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved, with modifications, the recommendation of the CBD and ruled that Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tambago acted negligently in exercising his duties as Notary Public.

RULING: No. Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties of his office. The Court finds that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the revocation of his commission and his perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.

The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate provision.

An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed. The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.

A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.

Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.

Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.

  

These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the CPR.