ALBERTO LOPEZ, complainant vs. ATTY. ROSENDO C.

RAMOS, respondent

[A.C. No. 12081. November 24, 2020.]

[Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4225]

FACTS:

The instant administrative case stemmed from the complaint-affidavit 1 dated May 27,
2014 filed by Alberto C. Lopez (Lopez) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
charging Atty. Rosendo Cruz Ramos (respondent) with violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) by willfully aiding the parties to the sale of a parcel of land, in
evading or defeating the payment of the proper amount of taxes due thereon; and for gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public resulting in the notarization and
registration of a forged deed of sale of the subject property.

Lopez alleged that he was the vendee of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila that was
originally covered under a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Aurea Munar Masangkay.
Subsequently, Lopez discovered that thru a forged deed of sale notarized by the respondent, a
new TCT for the same parcel of land was issued to Placida Ronquillo.

In the criminal case filed by Masangkay before the Manila RTC, it was shown that
Benjamin, one of Masangkay’s sons, forcibly took the original TCT from his brother and went to
the respondent’s office accompanied by a woman who posed as his mother and signed the
deeds of sale. Masangkay affirmed that her signature was. The falsified respondent prepared
and notarized two deeds of sale for the purpose of helping Benjamin and his alleged mother to
avoid the paying capital gains tax.

ISSUE: Whether or not, Atty. Rosendo Ramos should be held administratively liable for gross
negligence in violating the Notarial Law, Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer’s Oath.

HELD: Yes, Atty. Rosendo Ramos should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in
violating the Notarial Law, Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath when he
notarized the forged deeds of sale.

Jurisprudence provides that: “A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before him
to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Otherwise, the notary public
would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is party’s free act or deed.” Furthermore, the practice of law
provides that, “the act of notarization is imbued with substantive public interest wherein a
private document is converted into a public document, which results in document’s
admissibility in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.” Furthermore, the legal
precedent provides that, “a lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and refrain from any act of omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.”

In addition, Rule IV of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice puts that a notary public shall not
perform any notarial act for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the
appropriate fee if the notary knew or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or
transaction is unlawful or immoral. Moreover, Canon 1 of the CPR provides that: “A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.” Specifically, a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Lastly, the Lawyer’s Oath states that “a
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court.”
 In this case, Atty. Ramos committed gross negligence in performing his duties as a
notary public when he: First, notarized a deed of sale without ascertaining beforehand the
identity of the vendor; Second, the deeds of sale which he prepared and notarized bore forged
signatures; Third, he prepared and notarized two deeds of sale to minimize the payment of
capital gains tax.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ROSENDO C. RAMOS is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby
REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two
(2) years. He is STERNLY WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.