(p

~epublic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme <teourt '..,J" ; •• --:J ,i_~

BY:~----
.

;§Manila TIME: _ _ _ _ g; ~

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated August 7, 2019 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 11141 (Eleanor C. Escobar v. Atty. Marlon B.

Mercado)

This administrative case emanated from a Letter Complaint 1

filed by Eleanor C. Escobar (complainant) before the Court against
Atty. Marlon B. Mercado (respondent) for violation of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice (Rules).

Antecedents

Complainant is the registered owner of a four (4)-door

apartment unit located at Facundo Street, Barangay Pio Del Pilar,
Makati City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
171780 (subject property). On January 29, 2006, complainant went to
the United States of America. Complainant asked her relatives, Sam
Escobar and Nancy Escobar (Nancy), to manage the property in her
absence. In return, they were allowed to enjoy the fruits or rentals of
the property to support themselves. 2

On February 7, 2007, while complainant was in Germany,

Nancy filed a loan application for P2,000,000.00 under complainant's
name before the Manila Credit Corporation (MCC) without
complainant's knowledge, consent, and authority. The loan
application stated that complainant's birthdate was December 29,
1956, which was Nancy's birthdate. It also had an attachment of a
Bio-Data purporting to be complainant's. Since the subject property

- over - seven (7) pages ...

175
/

1
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 3-6.
2 Id. at 3.

~
 RESOLUTION 2 A.C. No. 11141
August 7, 2019

was previously mortgaged to a certain Evangeline C. Pangilinan,

Nancy, representing herself as complainant, signed and executed a
Promissory Note 3 and Real Estate Mortgage Contract, 4 which were
subsequently notarized by respondent. Respondent relied upon the
Community Tax Certificate submitted by Nancy as competent
evidence of identity. 5 Photographs were taken during the signing and
notarization of the Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage
Contract and during the release of the loan proceeds on February 13,
2007. Complainant later identified Nancy as the person in the pictures
who was signing the contract and promissory note and who received
the proceeds of the loan. 6

The subject property was subsequently foreclosed and sold to

7
MCC. Hence, the title of complainant to the subject property was
cancelled and a new title was issued under the name ofMCC.

On December 21, 2015, complainant, through her attomey-in-

fact, filed an administrative complaint against respondent for
notarizing the Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage Contract
without obtaining any competent evidence of identity, in violation of
the Rules. Complainant averred that she could not have signed and
executed the loan documents in question since she was abroad during
its execution and notarization and that she only returned to the
Philippines when she was ordered by the Commission on Bar
Discipline (Commission) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) to appear in person during the clarificatory hearing scheduled
on May 2, 201 7. She also contended that respondent had a conflict of
interest in notarizing the documents since he was the Assistant Vice
President for the Legal Department of MCC. 8

In his Comment with Manifestation and Motion,9 respondent

averred that he complied with the Rules. He contended that he
notarized the Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage in the
presence of complainant, and even required the latter to affix her
thumbmark and signature on the documents. Respondent asserted that
he relied upon, as evidence of the affiant's identity, the Community
Tax Certificate under the name of complainant. He also submitted in
evidence the loan documents allegedly signed by complainant and

- over -
175,, /

3
Id. at 14.
4
Id. at 15.
5
Id. at 4.
6
CIBD Report and Recommendation, p. 9, rollo, Vol. IV, p. 27.
7 Rollo, Vol. I, p. 13.
8
Id. at 4; Complainant's Position Paper, p. 7, rollo, Vol. II, p. 26.
9
Id. at 26-43.

~
 RESOLUTION 3 A.C. No. 11141
August 7, 2019

Lease Agreements, Financial Statements, and Annual Income Tax

Return covering the subject property. Respondent admitted that he is
the Assistant Vice President for the Legal Department of MCC.

On August 1, 2016, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation. 10

Report and Recommendation

In the June 29, 2017 Report and Recommendation, the

Commission recommended the imposition upon respondent of the
penalty of reprimand; the revocation of his notarial commission, if
still existing; disqualification for reappointment as Notary Public for a
period of one (1) year; and a warning that a repetition of similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

The Commission found that respondent was negligent in

ascertaining the identity of the affiant who signed the loan documents
by merely requiring the presentation of a Community Tax Certificate.
It also held that respondent's reliance upon documents such as Lease
Agreements, Financial Statements, and the Annual Income Tax
Return as competent evidence of complainant's identity had no legal
basis under the Rules. It also found overwhelming evidence that the
person appearing on the pictures taken during the execution and
notarization of the loan documents was Nancy and not complainant. It
noted that complainant was born on November 11, 1938 as evidenced
by her government-issued identification cards, contrary to the
statement in the loan application purportedly executed by complainant
that she was born on December 29, 1956. It also noted the official
records from the Bureau of Immigration submitted by complainant
that she left for the United States of America on January 29, 2006 and
stayed abroad until she was called to appear in the clarificatory
hearing before the Commission. The Commission, however,
recommended that the penalty be mitigated in view of respondent's
admission of guilt and repentance during the clarificatory hearing.

The IBP Board of Governors (Board), in its May 19, 2018

Resolution, 11 adopted the findings and recommendation of the
Commission.

Discussion:

- over -
175;

10
Id. at 117.
11
Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 17-18.

~
 RESOLUTION 4 A.C. No. 11141
August 7, 2019

The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the

Board in its May 19, 2018 Resolution except as to the penalty.

Section 2(b ), Rule IV of the Rules requires the affiant's

personal appearance before the notary public and the submission of
competent evidence of identity of the affiant, if the latter is not
personally known to the notary public. Under Section 12, Rule II of
the same, competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of
an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an

official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy

to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally
known to the notary public and who personally knows the
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to
the instrument, document or transaction who each personally
knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary
identification.

As a notary public, respondent failed to comply with the Rules

when he notarized the Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage
Contract without requiring an identification document bearing the
photograph and signature of Nancy. There was also no credible
witness who was personally known to respondent and complainant
who could, under oath or affirmation, identify the affiant or signatory
of the documents in order for respondent to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the acknowledging party.

Indeed, it would have been physically impossible for

complainant to appear before respondent and execute the Promissory
Note and Real Estate Mortgage Contract on February 7, 2007. As
shown by the official records of the Bureau of Immigration,
complainant was out of the country on said date, and only returned to
the Philippines in 2017. Hence, respondent violated his duty, as a
notary public, to ensure that the persons who signed the documents
are the very same persons who executed the same and who personally
appeared before him to attest to the truth of the contents of the
documents 12 when he notarized the Promissory Note and Real Estate
Mortgage Contract despite the absence of complainant.

Respondent should have exercised utmost diligence in

ascertaining the true identity of Nancy who misrepresented herself as

- over -
175
12
See Almario v. Atty. Llera-Agna, A.C. No. 10689, January 8, 2018, 850 SCRA 1, 10-11.

t
'I

RESOLUTION 5 A.C. No. 11141

August 7, 2019

complainant, considering the nature of the loan documents which

affected complainant's title to the property. His reliance on the
Community Tax Certificate cannot be countenanced since such
document does not even minutely comply with the requirements of the
Rules. As held by this Court in Baylon v. Atty. A/mo, 13 a Community
Tax Certificate is not included in the list of competent evidence of
identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of
persons appearing before them to have documents notarized because
of established unreliability and in view of the ease with which it can
be obtained. In lringan v. Atty. Gumangan, 14 this Court ruled that
Community Tax Certificates no longer qualify as competent evidence
of the parties' identities for purposes of notarization.

Respondent's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary

public resulted in damage to complainant. In fact, a new certificate of
title was issued in favor of MCC on the basis of the documents
notarized by respondent. Such title unduly prejudiced complainant's
right over her property. Respondent's negligence degrades the
function of notarization and diminishes public confidence on notarial
documents. For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent also
failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. He also violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and
deceitful conduct. 15

The notarization of public documents is vested with substantive

public interest. 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. 16 Respondent's failure to
strictly comply with the rules on notarial practice seriously
undermines the dependability and efficacy of notarized documents.

Proper Penalty

As to the proper penalty, jurisprudence provides that

a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out
the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2)

- over -
175 /

13
578 Phil. 238 (2008).
14 A.C. No. 8574, August 16, 2017, 837 SCRA 198.
15
See Ko v. Atty. Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584, March 6, 2019.
16
Uy v. Atty. Apuhin, A.C. No. 11826, September 5, 2018.

~
 t'

RESOLUTION 6 A.C. No. 11141

August 7, 2019

disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3)

suspension from the practice of law - the terms of which vary based
on the circumstances of each case. 17

In Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, 18 this Court, citing similar cases,

held that revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from
securing reappointment were insufficient to punish an erring notary
public. Suspension from the practice of law was also imposed as
penalty for non-compliance with the notarial rules.

In Balbin v. Atty. Baranda, Jr., 19 the notary public therein, who

was the lawyer of the lender corporation, as in the instant case,
notarized a Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage without the
presence of one of the signatories. The Court found the lawyer
administratively liable for notarizing the documents despite the
absence of one of the signatories. The Court deemed it proper to
suspend the lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months
considering his admission that he indeed notarized the documents in
the absence of the signatories, his expression of sincere apology for
his carelessness, and the fact that he was in the twilight years of his
life.

Following jurisprudential precedents and in order to remind

notaries public that strict compliance with the Rules is mandated by
the nature of notarization since it is imbued with public interest, this
Court deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months for his utter
disregard of the integrity and dignity owing to the legal profession,
taking into account, however, the Board's manifestation that
respondent admitted his defiance of the Rules and apologized for his
acts.

The Court must reiterate that membership in the legal

profession is a privilege that is bestowed upon individuals who are not
only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.
Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
public's faith in the legal profession. To declare that lawyers must, at
all times, uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such
statement can never be over-emphasized. Since of all classes and
professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is
then imperative that they live by the law. 20
- over -
175
17
Sappayani v. Atty. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 9 (2015).
18
499 Phil. 345 (2005).
19
A.C. No. 12041, November 5, 2018.
20
Gonzales v. Atty. Banares, A.C. No. 11396, June 20, 2018.

~
,,

RESOLUTION 7 A.C. No. 11141

August 7, 2019

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marlon B. Mercado is

GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the
Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if still
existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is hereby DISQUALIFIED
from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year. He
is likewise SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective immediately. Further, he is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution
to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take
effect.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records

of Atty. Marlon B. Mercado in the Office of the Bar Confidant and
copies thereof be furnished the courts and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

LIBRA~UENA ~
Divisiod Clerk of Court f/)."-\
175

Ms. Eleanor C. Escobar Atty. Marlon B. Mercado

Complainant Respondent
c/o Aile~n Grace Escobar-Balugo 35 th Floor Atlanta Centre Building
G-110 Luzuriaga Street, Brgy. 29 No. 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills
Bacolod City, 6100 Negros Occidental 1502 San Juan City

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

1605 Pasig City

Public Information Office (x) Office of the Bar Confidant (x)

Library Services (x) Supreme Court
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. Office of the Court Administrator (x)
No. 12-7-1-SC) Supreme Court

UR

\
~