April 02, 2018
FACTS
In 2003, eight indigent farmers asked respondent Atty. Robellito Diuyan to notarize a Deed of Partition they executed.
As District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in Mati City, Davao Oriental, Atty. Diuyan notarized on July 23, 2003 the Deed of Partition based on the farmers’ respective Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) as their proof of identities.
This reached the office of complainant IBP and it recommended the revocation of Atty. Diuyan’s notarial commission for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The IBP averred that Atty. Diuyan was grossly negligent when he notarized the Deed based on the farmers’ CTCs.
Atty. Diuyan invoked the presumption of good faith and regularity when he notarized the Deed as a public officer.
He likewise denied any irregularity in notarizing the said Deed.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Diuyan is administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition based on the affiants’ CTCs.
RULING
NO, Atty. Diuyan is NOT administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition based on the affiants’ CTCs.
A lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation of his duties as Notary-Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench.
It was incorrect for the IBP to have applied the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in holding respondent liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition. To reiterate, the Deed was notarized on July 23, 2003. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not yet in effect at that time.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the Complaint against Diuyan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Full text of this decision.
