G.R. No. A.C. No. 9334, July 28, 2020
Conrado Abe Lopez, Complainant, vs. Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Conrado Abe Lopez charged respondents Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana with dishonesty, malpractice, and violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint stemmed from the notarization of documents related to a parcel of land (Lot No. 1696-H) inherited by complainant. Complainant alleged that he executed a Special Power of Attorney (First SPA) on July 12, 2004 before Atty. Mata. On October 11, 2004, he signed a Second SPA naming Judge Rogelio Lucmayon as Attorney-in-Fact but did not personally appear before the notary public, Atty. Sentillas, for its notarization. On October 28, 2004, he signed a Third SPA, which contained a “Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership,” without personally appearing before notary public Atty. Mata. Complainant also discovered a Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004, where he allegedly sold his share to Loreto Lecanda, notarized by Atty. Abellana, which he denied signing or appearing before the notary for. A Certification confirmed Atty. Abellana did not file his notarial report for 2004. Respondents offered various defenses: Atty. Sentillas invoked presumption of regularity; Atty. Mata claimed he believed complainant was among those present out of respect for Judge Lucmayon; Atty. Abellana averred the complaint lacked a page and that non-submission of his report was immaterial.

ISSUE

Should respondents be sanctioned for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?

RULING

Yes, respondents are liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court adopted the factual findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline but modified the penalties. Notarization is a public function imbued with substantial public interest, requiring notaries public to observe the highest degree of care. Respondents failed in their duties: Atty. Sentillas failed to secure competent proof of the affiant’s identity for the Second SPA. Atty. Mata failed to ensure the identity of the person appearing before him for the Third SPA and admitted to not asking for competent proof out of respect for Judge Lucmayon. Atty. Abellana was remiss in his duty to submit his 2004 Notarial Report, and the Deed of Sale he notarized was never submitted to the Clerk of Court, casting doubt on its execution. Their actions undermined the integrity of the notarial system. The Court revoked their notarial commissions, disqualified them from reappointment as notary public for two years, and suspended them from the practice of law: Atty. Mata and Atty. Sentillas for six months each, and Atty. Abellana for three years, considering his previous sanction.