Sicat v. Ariola

 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice  [Administrative Case for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility] Cainta had entered into a contract with JCBATM for the construction of low-cost house s. For the first partial payment regarding the supervision of the project, Cainta issued a check in favor of JCBATM and/or Goco – Goco was able to encash the check pursuant to a SPA in his favor purportedly executed by the representative of JCBATM, Benitez. The SPA had been notarized by Ariola – however, it turned out that the notarization occurred more than 2 mos. after the death of Benitez. Sicat, a member of the Sanggu. of Rizal, filed a complaint-affidavit against Ariola. The IBP recommended the revocation of Ariola’s notarial commission as well as the imposition of a 1-yr. suspension against Ariola.

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them and personally appeared before them to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Notaries public must observe utmost fidelity, the basic requirement in the performance of their duties, otherwise the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds and documents will be undermined. When a notary public makes it appear that one of the parties to an instrument notarized by him appeared before the notary public when in fact such party did not – it is a violation of Canon 10, R10.01 of the CPR [observe candor, fairness, and good faith: truthfulness towards the court]. (Zaballero v. Montalvan ) Such fraudulent act also constitutes a violation of R1.01 of the CPR [no unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct], not to mention the lawyer’s oath. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.



The Municipality of Cainta (CAINTA) had entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management (JCBATM) for the construction of low-cost houses. o Architectural and Engineering Designs: P11M – with 2 consultants engaged to supervise the project. Cainta issued a check in the amount of P3.7M, payable to JCBATM and/or Cesar Goco (GOCO).  



o

o

The SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito Benitez (BENITEZ), who had represented JCBATM with respect to the contract with Cainta, in favor of Goco. , with the notarial acknowledgement of Ariola declaring that Benitez had “appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act.” 



(Sicat also charged Ariola for having committed falsification under Art. 171 of the RPC.) o Ariola’s Comment: Benitez had signed the SPA as early e arly as 12 May 2000, but Ariola had only been able to no tarize the SPA on 4 Jan 2001. 

DODOT

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice



In any event, the 4 Jan 2001 SPA was UNNECESSARY as Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his death – thus the 4 Jan 2001 SPA had been CANCELLED the same day that it had been notarized. Thus, legally no such public document existed. The complaint should be dismissed for forum shopping – similar complaints had been filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which complaints had allegedly been subsequently dismissed as the acts alleged constituted violations of the IRRs of some Auditing Laws (PD 1594, PD 7160) and other pertinent rules of the Commission on Audit (COA). No criminal and administrative charges were recommended for filing against him. 







o o

o

 

The IBP noted that material dates of the death of Benitez and the Notarization of the SPA. It held that Ariola could NOT feign innocence and claim that he did not know that Benitez had already been dead at the time of his notarization –  Ariola had personally known Benitez through his membership in the Prequalification and Awards Committee of Cainta. The IBP concluded that the SPA was part of a scheme to defraud Cainta of money and that by notarizing the SPA, Ariola had helped the perpetrators succeed in their plans.

[SEE Doctrine re: falsification of a notarized instrument vis-à-vis violations of the CPR and the lawyer’s oath] SC: As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was Ariola’s duty to serve the ends of justice – not to corrupt it; oathbound, Ariola was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon an honorable professi on. o Ariola never disputed Sicat’s accusation that he had notarized the SPA purportedly executed by Benitez on 4 Jan 2001 o Arriola also did not dispute the date of Benitez’s death – thus, when the latter purportedly executed the SPA notarized by the former, he had already been deceased and could not have personally appeared before Ariola. 





That the SPA was allegedly superfluous and unnecessary and did not prejudice anyone does NOT exenerate Ariola of accountability – o

o

As a public officer (not only a notary public), Ariola should not have caused disservice to his constituents by performing an act that would deceive them – w/o the SPA, the erring parties would NOT have been able to encash the check and could not have foisted upon Cainta a spurious contract. The SC quoted the COA Special Task Force which concluded that all the acts of falsification of public documents (Art. 171 in rel. to Art. 172, RPC) were evident in the transactions, noting that the first and partial payment had been made in the absence of the required outputs.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. DODOT

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice