SC suspends lawyer over notarial error

The Supreme Court has suspended Cebu-based lawyer Christopher Ruiz for notarizing an incomplete document, a violation under the 2004 Rules in Notarial Practice.

"We stress that a notary public carries with him a duty imbued with public interest. At all times, a notary public must be wary of the duties pertaining to his office. Thus, those who are not qualified to live up with the mandate of such office must, in absolute terms, be stripped off such authority," reads the decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.

It was couple Andre and Maria Fatima Chambon who filed a complaint against Ruiz.

The couple said they were creditors of a certain Suzette Auman, also known as Suzette Remoreras, who executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over a parcel of land with improvements covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29490.

The mortgage was meant to cover her obligation to the couple.

The REM was reportedly annotated in the Registry of Deeds of Mandaue City in 2006 and TCT No. 29490 was handed over to the couple.

Since Remoreras failed to pay her obligation, the couple instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings over the property before the ExOfficio Sheriff of Mandaue City. Public auction was set on April 27, 2010.

However, sometime in February 2010, the couple learned that the Regional Trial Court in Mandaue City issued an order dated March 24, 2008, which directed the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of the lot title.

It was Remoreras who filed the petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy on an alleged Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the title.

Remoreras also filed a complaint to enjoin the scheduled public auction set by the sheriff on the basis of an alleged execution and delivery of a Release of Mortgage document on the property the Chambon couple executed.

The couple found out later that it was Ruiz who notarized the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and the Release of Mortgage in Cebu City. The couple denied they executed a Release of Mortgage.

Ruiz, for his part, denied the existence and notarization of the Release of Mortgage but admitted the existence of a Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and its entry in the Notarial Register.

The Supreme Court said in notarizing a private document by a notary public, Ruiz converted it into a public document, which made it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity, “thus, a notarial document is by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”

The Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss allegedly executed by Remoreras was undisputedly notarized by Ruiz and entered the same in his Notarial Register, Tijam said.

Tijam said that upon examination, the document was found incomplete since it did not show the competent proof of the identity of the executor Remoreras, which violates Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules.

Section 5 states that a notary public shall not (a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false; (b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

Tijam revoked the notarial commission of Ruiz and perpetually disqualified him from being a notary public.

Tijam warned Ruiz that repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.