ferguson vs ramos

April 18, 2017

A.C. No. 9209

NENITA DE GUZMAN FERGUSON, Complainant vs. ATTY. SALVADOR P. RAMOS, Respondents

FULL TEXT

Facts:

Before the Court is the Complaint-Affidavit, 1 filed by Nenita De Guzman Ferguson (complainant), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Salvador P. Ramos (Atty. Ramos) for falsification, violation of notarial law and engaging in private practice while employed in the government service.

Complainant alleged that on November 25, 2007, she purchased a house and lot located in San Rafael, Bulacan, for the sum of ₱800,000.00; that without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) mainly to.transfer the title of the said property to her name; that the seller was unaware that the said CLOA was void ab initio as the subject land was not an agricultural land and there existed a 10-year prohibition to transfer the subject land; that in 2009; complainant instituted a petition for the cancellation of the CLOA before the DAR Office; that the defendants were represented by Atty. Ramos, who was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan; that complainant withdrew the petition before the DAR and filed the case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos City (RTC); that upon receipt of the Answer, complainant found out that it was strikingly similar to the one filed by the defendants in the DAR, which was prepared by Atty. Ramos; that complainant discovered that the Deed of Sale,2 dated April 24, 2009, which became the basis of the transfer of title was fraudulently altered as it only covered the sale of the land, not the house and· lot, and the price indicated was only ₱188,340.00, not the amount of ₱800,000.00 3 that she actually paid; that her signature and that of her husband, Douglas Ferguson -(Douglas), were forged; that Atty. Ramos notarized the deed of Sale without their presence;· and that complainant and her husband neither appeared, executed nor acknowledged any document before Atty. Ramos as they never met him in person.


In his Comment, 4 Atty. Ramos denied that he represented the defendants in· the case before the DAR but he admitted that he notarized their Answer. With respect to the charge of falsification of the April 24,

2009 Deed of Sale and the notarization of the aforementioned deed, Atty. Ramos likewise denied any participation and countered that his signature as a notary public was forged. Atty. · Ramos, nonetheless, admitted that he notarized the "genuine" Deed of Sale, 5 dated May 12, 2009, executed between vendor Alfredo Inosanto, and vendees complainant and her spouse, involving the same property for the amount of ₱300,000.00.6 Atty. Ramos surmised that whoever benefited from such dastardly act could be the culprit in the falsification of the document as the forged deed of sale which indicated a lesser purchase price was the one presented in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan in order to evade payment of a higher capital gains tax.

Issue:

is respondent liable for violating the notarial law

Ruling:

yes.

Section1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states:

The acknowledgment shall be before· a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is· his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he isrequired by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The importance of the affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which specifically provides that:

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -

(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

The afore-quoted rules clearly mandate that a notary public, before notarizing a document, should require the presence: of the very person who executed the same. Thus, he certifies that it was the same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein. 10 The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary ·public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. 11

In the present case, Atty. Ramos denied having notarized the April 24, 2009 deed of sale and claimed that his signature was forged. He even alluded that the person who benefited from it could be the forger as the capital gains tax liability was reduced. He, nonetheless, admitted notarizing the "genuine" deed of sale, dated May 12, 2009.

Regardless of who the culprit was and the motive of such forgery, Atty. Ramos .cannot be exonerated from liability.


It must be emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public.

By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and ··seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.

Not only did Atty. Ramos fail to comply with the Rule on Notarial Practice when he notarized the deed of sale without the presence of the parties but he likewise violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which obliges a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes; and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. 14

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, Atty. Ramos was mandated to exercise the function of his office and must observe with utmost care the basic formalities of his office and requisites in the performance of his duties. 15 When Atty. Ramos affixed his signature and notarial seal on the deed of sale, he led us to believe that the parties personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents thereof. His conduct was fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord on notarized documents. 16 Certainly, Atty. Ramos failed to exercise the functions of the office and to comply with the mandates of the law.

hence. the court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for six (6) months; REVOKES his notarial commission, effective immediately; and PERMANENTLYBARS him from being commissioned as notary public, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely.