Through Civil Judgment No. 99/22, the Superior Court of Justice rejected the appeals filed by the notary public Gladys Dionisia Báez, who was sanctioned by the College that brings together professionals in this area with suspension for a period of one year in the exercise. of the profession due to irregularities in their actions.
The disciplinary sanction was applied by the College of Notaries in the framework of the provisions of the Notary Law due to the alleged irregularities detected in the granting and authorization of a private document dated August 29, 2011.
In this document, the parents of a child, in exercise of parental authority, gave express consent and authorization so that their child can travel in the company of their uncles who lived in Buenos Aires jointly, separately or alternatively throughout the territory of the Republic. Argentina and neighboring countries. In addition, they gave him custody and appointed them guardians of the little one.
Sanction of the College of Notaries
The Directive Commission of the Association of Notaries to establish the disciplinary sanction explained that by certifying that document, the professional committed a fault in the exercise of her notarial function, because what was signed by the child’s parents contradicted the norms of the Civil Code.
Chamber IV of the Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals ratified this position and added that the fault was not corrected with the private instrument of revocation of the travel authorization, a document with signatures certified by the same notary public presented later.
Also from the Chamber it was indicated that the sanction of the Association of Notaries was valid because the civil or criminal liability of the notary was never judged, but only the professional one at the time of granting the notarial act. In this way, the question did not become abstract by virtue of the validity of the new Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation.
STJ ruling
Dr. Guillermo Horacio Semhan, author of the first vote, rejected each of the questions raised by the notary’s defense. “It is known that professional liability is configured by the sole and objective fact of non-compliance with express legal regulations, in other words, by non-observance of the provisions that impose the duties of the notary, by action or omission,” he said.
And he clarified that in this case the certification of signatures was made on August 29, 2011 when the previous Civil Code was in force. For this reason, “on that occasion, he failed to comply with his duty to advise and to refrain from the requirement in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the Regulations for the Certification of Signatures and Digital Impressions -Res. No. 82/09-, consummating on that occasion the irregular professional conduct “.
The summary began in 2011 and had been processed for ten years, however, the delay was not attributable to the authorities in charge of processing. In fact, it was adjudicable to the notary, who, through her lawyer, presented more than 20 proposals, before which the Superior Court recommended that her attorney refrain from continuing. It was also pointed out to him that it was not appropriate to declare the disciplinary power prescribed because the law that regulated the notarial function did not have provisions in this regard.
Doctors Fernando Augusto Niz, Luis Eduardo Rey Vázquez, Eduardo Gilberto Panseri and Alejandro Alberto Chaín joined his vote.
