Notarizing the “Deed of the Dead” – Arrieta vs. Llosa

Facts

This is an administrative case filed by complainant Arrieta praying for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jose A. Llosa for notarizing and certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale making it appear that some of the vendors in said deed were parties and signatories thereto when in truth and in fact, some of them were already dead prior to its execution. The case was assigned to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for proper investigation. During the pendency of the case, complainant had a complete turn-around and moved for the dismissal of his complaint. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the instant case and the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the recommendation and resolved to dismiss the instant case.

Issue: Do the acts of Atty. Llosa constitute grave misconduct? Yes

Ruling:

1. Duties impressed with public interest. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties which are dictated by public policy and, as such, impressed with public interest. 
2. Solemn and sacrosanct. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly disregarded the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law simply to accommodate his clients. 
3. Illegal and damaging. Not only did he commit an illegal act but also did so without thinking of the possible damage or prejudice that might result from non-observance of the same. 
4. Full knowledge that they are dead is a grave misconduct. As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an instrument fully knowing that some of the signatories thereto were long dead. … Respondent’s act of certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were already dead, they being his former clients, constitutes misconduct. 
5. Background does not justify ignorance. This Court cannot countenance this practice, especially coming, as it does, from respondent who formerly served as president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Negros Oriental Chapter, President of the Dumaguete Lions Club and City Councilor of Dumaguete. 
6. Should hav taken verifying steps. If indeed respondent had taken steps to verify the identities of the signatories, he would have easily known that the signatures were fake as they purported to be those of his former clients. 
7. First offense does not warrant disbarment. But this being his first administrative offense, such should not warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment. This Court finds respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa guilty of misconduct. Consequently, he is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that another infraction would be dealt with more severely.