Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Talisic v. Rinen

    Uploaded by

    mma
    59 views3 pages
    This administrative case involved a complaint against Atty. Primo Rinen for falsifying an extra judicial partition that allowed the transfer of property belonging to Wilberto Talisic's mother to new owners. While Rinen's defense claimed the parties approached him to notarize the document, he failed to properly verify the identities of all parties and ensure they willingly signed. The IBP recommended cancelling Rinen's notary commission and suspending his ability to be commissioned for one year due to negligence. The Court agreed, revoking Rinen's commission and disqualifying him from being a notary for one year due to his failure to properly discharge his duties with care.

    Original Description:

    Talisic v. Rinen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This administrative case involved a complaint against Atty. Primo Rinen for falsifying an extra judicial partition that allowed the transfer of property belonging to Wilberto Talisic's mother to new owners. While Rinen's defense claimed the parties approached him to notarize the document, he failed to properly verify the identities of all parties and ensure they willingly signed. The IBP recommended cancelling Rinen's notary commission and suspending his ability to be commissioned for one year due to negligence. The Court agreed, revoking Rinen's commission and disqualifying him from being a notary for one year due to his failure to properly discharge his duties with care.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    59 views3 pages

    Talisic v. Rinen

    Uploaded by

    mma
    This administrative case involved a complaint against Atty. Primo Rinen for falsifying an extra judicial partition that allowed the transfer of property belonging to Wilberto Talisic's mother to new owners. While Rinen's defense claimed the parties approached him to notarize the document, he failed to properly verify the identities of all parties and ensure they willingly signed. The IBP recommended cancelling Rinen's notary commission and suspending his ability to be commissioned for one year due to negligence. The Court agreed, revoking Rinen's commission and disqualifying him from being a notary for one year due to his failure to properly discharge his duties with care.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.C. No. 8761. February 12, 2014.]

    WILBERTO C. TALISIC , complainant, vs . ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN ,


    respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    REYES , J : p

    This is an administrative case instituted by complainant Wilberto C. Talisic


    (Wilberto) against Atty. Primo R. Rinen 1 (Atty. Rinen), charging the latter with falsi cation
    of an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale 2 which allowed the transfer to spouses Benjamin
    Durante and Eleonor Laviña (Spouses Durante) of a parcel of land formerly owned by
    Wilberto's mother, Aurora Corpuz (Aurora). The property, measuring 3,817 square meters
    and situated in Barangay Langgas, Infanta, Quezon, was formerly covered by Original
    Certi cate of Title No. P-4875 under Aurora's name. 3 After Atty. Rinen led his comment
    on the complaint, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
    Commission on Bar Discipline, for investigation, report and recommendation. 4
    Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May 7, 1987, leaving behind as
    heirs her spouse, Celedonio Talisic, and their three children, namely: Arlene Talisic Villarazo,
    Wilberto and Alvin Corpuz Talisic. It was only after his father's death on November 2, 2000
    that Wilberto and his siblings knew of the transfer of the subject parcel via the subject
    deed. While Wilberto believed that his father's signature on the deed was authentic, his and
    his siblings' supposed signatures were merely forged. Wilberto also pointed out that even
    his name was erroneously indicated in the deed as "Wilfredo". 5
    For his defense, Atty. Rinen 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 o ce 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 o ce for the administration of oath. 6 The deed contained his certi cation
    that at the time of the document's execution, "no notary public was available to expedite
    the transaction of the parties." Notarial fees paid by the parties were also covered by a
    receipt issued by the Treasurer of the Municipality of Real, Quezon. 7
    After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III
    (Commissioner Abelita) issued the Report and Recommendation 8 dated November 20,
    2012 for the cancellation of Atty. Rinen's notarial commission and his suspension from
    notarial practice for a period of one year. 9 The report indicated that per Atty. Rinen's
    admission, the subject deed was prepared in his o ce and acknowledged before him.
    Although there was no evidence of forgery on his part, he was negligent in not requiring
    from the parties to the deed their presentation of documents as proof of identity. Atty.
    Rinen's failure to properly satisfy his duties as a notary public was also shown by the
    inconsistencies in the dates that appear on the deed, to wit: "1994 as to the execution;
    1995 when notarized; [and] entered as Series of 1992 in the notarial book . . . ." 1 0aHDTAI

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com


    In the meantime, Atty. Rinen led a motion for reconsideration 1 1 of Commissioner
    Abelita's recommendation. The IBP Board of Governors, nonetheless, adopted and
    approved on March 20, 2013, via Resolution No. XX-2013-247, the Investigating
    Commissioner's Report and Recommendation. 1 2
    The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
    "[F]aithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
    acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct." 1 3 "The notarization of a document carries
    considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into
    a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
    Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a
    substantial degree . . . ." 1 4
    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 delity." 1 5 Towards this end, the Court emphasized in Bautista
    v. Atty. Bernabe 1 6 that "[a] notary public should not notarize a document unless the
    persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
    appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The
    presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness
    of the signature of the affiant." 1 7
    In the present case, Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the
    identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject document and whom, as he
    claimed, appeared before him on April 7, 1994. Such failure was further shown by the fact
    that the pertinent details of the community tax certi cates of Wilberto and his sister, as
    proof of their identity, remained unspeci ed in the subject deed's acknowledgment
    portion. Clearly, 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. The lapses he committed in relation
    to such function then justified the recommendations presented by the IBP.
    The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court judge during the time that he administered
    the oath for the subject deed did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards
    and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries public. He also could not
    have simply relied on his clerk of court to perform the responsibilities attached to his
    function, especially as it pertained to ensuring that the parties to the document were then
    present, performing an act that was of their own free will and deed. "Notarization is not an
    empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
    only those who are quali ed or authorized may act as notaries public." 1 8 It converts a
    private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of
    its authenticity. Thus, "notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
    requirements in the performance of their duties." 1 9 Otherwise, the confidence of the public
    in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined. 2 0
    WHEREFORE , as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Court
    REVOKES the notarial commission which Atty. Primo R. Rinen may presently have, and
    DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective
    immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall
    merit a more severe sanction. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his
    receipt of this Resolution to enable it to determine when the revocation of his notarial
    commission and his disquali cation from being commissioned as notary public shall take
    effect.
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
    Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant to be
    appended to Atty. Primo R. Rinen's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to
    the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
    guidance.
    SO ORDERED.
    Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Footnotes

    1. Referred to as Atty. Primo R. Rinen, Sr. in pleadings filed by the respondent.

    2. Rollo, p. 32A.
    3. Id. at 31A.
    4. Id. at 17.
    5. Id. at 1.
    6. Id. at 14-15, 57.
    7. Id. at 2.
    8. Id. at 136-137.
    9. Id. at 137.
    10. Id.
    11. Id. at 130-131.
    12. Id. at 135.
    13. Linco v. Lacebal, A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011, 659 SCRA 130, 135.
    14. Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, 486 Phil. 254, 267 (2004).
    15. Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87, 93.
    16. 517 Phil. 236 (2006).

    17. Id. at 240.


    18. Linco v. Lacebal, supra note 13, at 135.
    19. Id.
    20. Id.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like