ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES vs. ATTY. RAMOS A.C. No. 5645 ; July 2, 2002 ACTS!

This is a case for disbarment for Atty. Ramos by the NBI in behalf of the petitioner for violation of Act. No. 2711 or the Notarial Law. This case stemmed from the borrowin of the ori inal title to a parcel of land in !aco"#anila by petitioner$s brother" #an%el. &hen petitioner wanted to recover the title" her brother ref%sed. As remedy" petitioner Rosalinda e'ec%ted an affidavit of loss and presented it to the Re ister of (eeds of #anila. )owever" to her s%rprise" the Re ister of (eeds informed her that the title to the s%b*ect land has already been transferred to her brother" #an%el" via a deed of Absol%te +ale to which Atty. Ramos notari,ed. This prompted Rosalinda to file with the NBI a complaint for falsification of p%blic doc%ments a ainst Atty. Ramos. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since accordin to him he only inadvertently si ned the p%rported Deed of Absolute Sale and-or that his si nat%re was proc%red thro% h mista.e" fra%d" %nd%e infl%ence or e'c%sable ne li ence" claimin that he simply relied on the ass%rances of #an%el that the doc%ment wo%ld not be %sed for p%rposes other than a loan between brother and sister" and that he affi'ed his si nat%re thereon with %tmost ood faith and witho%t intendin to obtain personal ain or to ca%se dama e or in*%ry to another. "ELD! A notary p%blic sho%ld not notari,e a doc%ment %nless the persons who si ned the same are the very same persons who e'ec%ted and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and tr%th of what are stated therein. The p%rpose of this re/%irement is to enable the notary p%blic to verify the en%ineness of the si nat%re of the ac.nowled in party and to ascertain that the doc%ment is the party0s free act and deed. &e ta.e note of respondent0s admission in his Answer that he had affi'ed his si nat%re in the p%rported Deed of Absolute Sale b%t he did not enter it in his notarial re istry. This is clearly in violation of the Notarial Law for which he m%st be disciplined. Respondent alle es that he merely si ned the Deed of Absolute Sale inadvertently and that his si nat%re was proc%red thro% h mista.e" fra%d" %nd%e infl%ence or e'c%sable ne li ence as he relied on the ass%rances of #an%el A. Bernardo" a kababayan from !ampan a" that the doc%ment wo%ld not be %sed for any ille al p%rpose. &e cannot honor" m%ch less ive credit to this alle ation. That respondent notari,ed the doc%ment o%t of sympathy for his kababayan is not a le itimate e'c%se. It is appallin that respondent did away with the basics of notarial proced%re in order to accommodate

the alle ed need of a friend and client. In doin so" he displayed a decided lac. of respect for the solemnity of an oath in a notarial doc%ment. #"ERE ORE" for lac. of dili ence in the observance of the Notarial Law" the commission of respondent Atty. #ario 1. Ramos as Notary !%blic" if still e'istin " is REVO$ED and thereafter Atty. Ramos sho%ld be DIS%&ALI IED from reappointment to the office of Notary !%blic. Respondent Atty. #ario 1. Ramos is also S&S'ENDED from the practice of law for a period of si' 234 months effective immediately. )e is DIRECTED to report to this 5o%rt his receipt of this (ecision to enable it to determine when his s%spension shall have ta.en.