CASE DIGEST (Legal Profession)
Talisic vs Atty. Riñen
AC No. 8761, February 12, 2014
First Division, J. Reyes
Petitioner Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May 7, 1987, and it was only after his father’s death on November 2, 2000 that Wilberto and his siblings knew of the transfer of the parcel of land originally owned Aurora. While Wilberto believed that his father’s signature on the deed was authentic, his and his siblings’ supposed signatures were merely forged.
Atty. Riñen denied the charge against him and explained that it was only on April 7, 1994 that he came to know of the transaction between the Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when they approached him in his office as the then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Real, Quezon, to have the subject deed prepared and notarized. His clerk of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the parties to his office for the administration of oath.
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III (Commissioner Abelita) issued the Report and Recommendation dated November 20, 2012 for the cancellation of Atty. Riñen’s notarial commission and his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one year.
WON Atty. Riñen should be removed from being a notary public.
Yes. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. It must then be stressed that, “a notary public’s function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.”
Atty. Riñen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject document. There was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to exercise the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public ex–officio. Thus, Atty. Riñen’s notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.