Thursday, August 24, 2023

Ang v. Belaro, Jr. [A.C. No. 12408. December 11, 2019]

 CASE DIGEST

Ang v. Belaro, Jr.

A.C. No. 12408, December 11, 2019

SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

Notarial Practice, the Bill of Rights Due Process of Law. Procedural Aspect, Administrative Proceedings 

DOCTRINE: Notaries public have a duty to observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of notarized documents.

 

Complainant Venson and his siblings discovered that their late mother's property was fraudulently transferred through an allegedly forged Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights and other questionable documents notarized by respondent Atty. Belaro. During the investigation, the signatures of Atty. Belaro in the Extrajudicial Settlement appeared to be forgeries, while his signatures in other documents were deemed genuine. The Investigating Commissioner of IBP found evidence of forgery and negligence on the part of Atty. Belaro for failing to properly secure his notarial seal.

 

Whether respondent breached the Notarial Practice Law.

 

YES. His signatures in three versions of the Extrajudicial Settlement were confirmed forgeries. He failed to properly secure and keep his notarial seal, which led to its unauthorized use in the Extrajudicial Settlement, converting it into a public document. His negligence in reportorial duties as a Notary Public was also noted. These actions breached the duties of a notary public and lawyer, undermining the integrity of notarization and making him liable for negligence.

 

Whether the IBP violated respondent Atty. Belaro's right to due process.

 

NO. It ruled that there was no violation of Atty. Belaro's right to due process as he was given ample opportunity to defend himself and present evidence. The Court clarified that administrative due process does not require a trial-type proceeding, but only that the person be notified of the charges and given a chance to explain. Atty. Belaro had received notices of the proceedings and was able to file motions and responses. Therefore, the minimum requirements of due process were met.

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

No comments:

Post a Comment

Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King, G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005

 CASE DIGEST Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005 THIRD DIVISION, CORONA J.     C...