G.R. No. A.C. No. 3223; May 29, 2003
Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio, complainant, vs. Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio sought disciplinary action against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing two documents—a Deed of Absolute Sale and a Bill of Sale—purportedly executed by her husband, Kua Se Beng, in Isabela, Basilan, on June 1, 1983. Complainant alleged her husband could not have been present as he was confined at Makati Medical Center from May 30 to June 30, 1983, supported by hospital records. She also denied consenting to or signing the deed. The transactions transferred property to a corporation and a vehicle to an individual. A separate charge alleged respondent filed an inaccurate “Inventory and Appraisal” in a guardianship proceeding without her knowledge.
In his Comment, respondent admitted notarizing the documents without Kua’s personal appearance. He claimed Kua, a trusted friend, instructed him to prepare the deeds before leaving for Manila on May 28, 1983, to settle debts, and that they were sent to Manila for signature via Kua’s mother. Respondent asserted the signatures were genuine based on his familiarity with them. Regarding the inventory, he denied containing false information, stating data was lifted from case documents, and he was unaware of complainant’s objections.

ISSUE

Whether respondent violated his duties as a lawyer and notary public, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, respondent violated his professional and notarial duties. The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation, revoking his notarial commission and suspending him from law practice. Respondent breached the Notarial Law by performing a notarial act beyond his jurisdiction, as the documents were not signed or personally verified before him in Basilan. His acknowledgment clause falsely stated Kua personally appeared before him on June 1, 1983, constituting an untruthful statement in violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer’s oath.
The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with public interest, requiring notaries to observe utmost care, including ensuring the personal appearance of signatories to attest to truthfulness. Respondent’s failure undermined public confidence in notarial acts. However, the charge regarding the “Inventory and Appraisal” was dismissed for lack of proof. Consequently, respondent’s notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for six months.