Sicat v. Ariola

Sicat v. Ariola (2005) A.C. No.
5864
15 April 2005 PER CURIAM:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
SUMMARY: [Administrative Case for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility] Cainta had entered into a
contract with JCBATM for the construction of low-cost houses. 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
Ariolas notarial commission as well as the imposition of a 1-yr. suspension against Ariola. The SC ordered the
DISBARMENT of Ariola for gross misconduct.
DOCTRINE: 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 lawyers 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.
FACTS:
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).
Goco received and encashed the check by virtue of the authority of a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) notarized by Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola (ARIOLA), then the Municipal Administrator of
Cainta.
Re: the SPA notarized by Ariola:
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.
o The SPA was notarized on 4 Jan 2001, with the notarial acknowledgement of Ariola declaring that
Benitez had appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary
act.
HOWEVER, Benitez had died on 25 Oct 2000 more than 2 months PRIOR to the notarization.
Arturo Sicat (SICAT), a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, filed an affidavit-complaint against
Ariola for violation of the CPR by committing fraud, deceit, and falsehood, vis--vis the notarization of the SPA.
(Sicat also charged Ariola for having committed falsification under Art. 171 of the RPC.)
o Ariolas Comment:
Benitez had signed the SPA as early as 12 May 2000, but Ariola had only been able to notarize
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.
IBPs Investigation Report: Recommended that Ariolas notarial commission be REVOKED and that Ariola be
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 yr.
o The IBP noted that material dates of the death of Benitez and the Notarization of the SPA.
o 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.
o 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.
ISSUES:
1. Should Ariola be held administratively liable for notarizing the SPA?
HELD:
1. YES, he should be DISBARRED for gross misconduct
[SEE Doctrine re: falsification of a notarized instrument vis--vis violations of the CPR and the lawyers oath]
SC: As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was Ariolas 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 profession.
o Ariola never disputed Sicats accusation that he had notarized the SPA purportedly executed by Benitez
on 4 Jan 2001
o Arriola also did not dispute the date of Benitezs 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.
Recall the notarial acknowledgement: that Benitez appeared before [Ariola] and acknowledged
that the instrument was [Benitezs] free and voluntary act.
Clearly, Ariola lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement.
That the SPA was allegedly superfluous and unnecessary and did not prejudice anyone does NOT exenerate
Ariola of accountability Ariolas assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most
cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
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.
o 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.
DISPOSITIVE: 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

Sicat v. Ariola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sicat v. Ariola

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sicat v. Ariola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sicat v. Ariola (2005) A.C. No.

DODOT 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

DODOT 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

You might also like