A.C. No. 9676

APRIL 2, 2018

A.C. No. 9676

In Re: Decision dated September 26, 2012 in OMB-M-A-10-023-A, etc. against Atty. Robelito* B. Diuyan 

FULL TEXT

facts:

In a Resolution2 dated July 24, 2013, this Court treated the September 26, 2012 Decision in OMB-M-A-10-023-A and the Deed of Partition as an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan and required the latter to file a comment thereon.3

In a letter4 dated October 30, 2013, and by way of comment, respondent admitted notarizing the Deed of Partition in his capacity as District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney's Office in Mati City and all of Davao Oriental.

He claimed that:


[The] signature as Notary Public in that [July 23, 2003] Deed of Partition subject matter of the complaint was indeed mine. I was still connected with the Public Attorney's Office as District Public Attorney at that time. I retired on April 20, 2008. My function [included] the execution and/or notarization of a document xx x.

In the case at bar, eight (8) persons appeared before me with the document deed of partition prepared by them subject matter of the complaint. I asked them one by one if the document is true and correct [and] with their Community Tax Certificates, they answered me in the affirmative and after being satisfied with their answer I notarized the document for free as they are considered as indigents. Of course, they signed it one by one in front of me.5 <<


By way of explanation, respondent narrated in his Position Paper9 that:

x x x I have nothing to do with present [charge]. [A]s public officer[,] I [enjoy] the presumption of good faith and regularity in [the discharge] of my function as Chief Public Attorney in Mati and all in Davao Oriental xx x; there is no showing that, I have committed any wrong since x x x becoming a lawyer and member of x x x the [l]ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as [during my] 22 years of x x x service in [the Public Attorney's Office] and in my private life x x x.

With regard to the deed of partition x x x there is no showing that it was done with irregularity x x x.In a Report and Recommendation 11 dated September 24, 2014, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While it found no deceit or malice on the part of the respondent, and even considered the fact that respondent was a former public official with no previous record of misconduct, as well as the fact that the affiants in the subject Deed of Partition were farmers who did not have any IDs and only had Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) to present and prove their identities, the IBP-CBD nonetheless found him grossly negligent in the performance of his functions.

issue:

Whether respondent should he held administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition on the basis of the affiants' CTCs.

ruling:

no.

This Court finds nothing irregular with respondent's act of notarizing. the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003 on the basis of the affiants' CTCs. The law applicable at the time of the notarization only required the presentation of the CTCs.




Similarly, respondent notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003, or prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,16 of which he is being held accountable by the IBP. However, when the Deed was notarized on July 23, 2003, the applicable law was the notarial law w1der Title N, Chapter 11, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code, 17 Section 251 of which states:




SECTION 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of (cedula) residence tax. - Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall haw certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper (cedula) residence certificates or are exempt from the (cedula) residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of each (cedula) residence certificate as aforesaid.


Thus, it was incorrect for the IBP to have applied the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in holding respondent liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition. To reiterate, the Deed was notarized on July 23, 2003. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not yet in effect at that time.


Here, respondent was then the District Public Attorney in Mati, Davao Oriental when affiants, who were indigent fanners and who did not have any personal identification card or any other form of competent evidence save for their CTCs, 19 requested the notarization of the Deed of Partition. These eight individuals who approached him presented themselves to be the affiants of the said Deed and signed the same in respondent's presence. There was nothing irregular on the face of the Deed that would have alerted respondent to ask probing questions or inquire about the circumstances behind the execution of the said instrument. On the contrary, the Deed was a valid exercise of the fanners' right to divide the title in their favor as beneficiaries. The Ombudsman affirmed this when it dismissed the administrative case filed against an agrarian reform officer concen1ing the Deed. In fact, the Ombudsman ruled that "[t]he eventual breaking of TCT20 CLOA21 No. 454 into individual titles in favor of the farmer beneficiaries named in said collective CLOA is not irregular as it is, in fact, provided by DAR22 rules and regulations."23


In fine, respondent did not violate any of his duties as Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003.