A.C. NO.

12062

HEIR OF HERMINIGILDO UNITE, represented by his sole heir, FLORENTINO S. UNITE V.

ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN

02 July 2018

FACTS:

 A Petition for Disbarment filed on December 9, 2014 by Florentino S. Unite

(complainant), as the sole heir of Herminigildo A. Unite (Herminigildo ), before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), against respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman
(respondent) for violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), his oath as a lawyer, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).

 On 19 December 2012, complainant alleged in his Petition for Disbarment that

respondent notarized a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale and/with Deed of Absolute
Sale (Deed) executed by Jose Unite Torrices (Torrices), claiming to be the sole heir of
Herminigildo, in favor of one Francisco U. Tamayo (Tamayo), covering a parcel of land
located in Ballesteros, Cagayan and covered by a title under Herminigildo's name.

 According to complainant, the Deed was executed with only Torrices's community tax
certificate (CTC) as evidence of identity. 5 Complainant asserted that he is the only
surviving heir of his father, Herminigildo, as Torrices is his cousin.

 As a result of respondent's acts, the Deed was recorded in the Registry of Deeds, which
caused the cancellation of his father's title and the issuance of a new one in the name of
Tamayo.

 On 20 October 2014, complainant added that he filed a complaint for the annulment of
the Deed and Tamayo's title, with liquidation/accounting and damages before the
 Regional Trial Court of Ballesteros, Cagayan, Branch 33, docketed as Civil Case No. 33-
471-2014.

 In support of his Petition, complainant attached copies of the Deed, Certificate of Death
of Herminigildo, his birth certificate, the marriage contract of his parents, Tamayo's
Transfer Certificate of Title, and the Complaint in Civil Case No. 33-471-2014 with its
annexes.

 In his Answer, respondent denied the charges against him and claimed that he complied
with the requirements of the Notarial Rules. Particularly, he verified the identity of the
parties to the Deed from their current government identification documents with pictures
and CTCs. He further inquired from the parties, especially rom Torrices, their capacity to
execute the Deed.

 In reply to respondent's Answer, complainant pointed out, among others, that: (a) a CTC
is no longer considered a competent evidence of identification as it does not bear the
photograph and signature of the individual; (b) the other documents presented by
Torrices as proof of being the sole heir did not cure the absence of the required
competent evidence of identity; (c) and the pendency of Civil Case No. 33-471-2014
does not bar the instant administrative action.

 In a Report and Recommendation dated April 21, 2015, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner (IBP-IC) found respondent administratively liable for violation of the
Notarial Rules. The IBP-IC held that respondent failed to confirm the identity of the
parties to the Deed through the presentation of competent evidence of identity as
required by the Notarial Rules, pointing out, in this regard, that a CTC is not one of the
enumerated evidence of identity under the Rules.
  Accordingly, the IBP-IC recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months and be disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of one (1) year.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial
Rules and of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. The Court finds respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman guilty of violation of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice and of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendations of the IBP with modifications.

The Court has emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with public interest.
Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full
faith and credence. As such, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in
the integrity of the notarial system.

In this case, respondent, as duly found by the IBP-IC, clearly failed to faithfully observe his
duties as a notary public when he failed to confirm the identity of Torrices through the
competent evidence of identity required by the Notarial Rules. This fact is clear from the Deed
itself, which shows that Torrices presented only his CTC when he appeared before respondent.

The respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and refrain from any act or omission which might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the integrity of the legal profession. By notarizing the subject Deed, he engaged in an
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct which makes him liable as well for violation of
the CPR, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 thereof which provides:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

As herein discussed, respondent's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public
resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in
undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and in degrading the function of
notarization. He should thus be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but
also as a lawyer.