The Supreme Court held that a notary public’s failure to ensure the personal appearance of parties to a notarized document and to comply with the required submission of notarial reports constitutes negligence. This negligence warrants disciplinary action. Notaries public play a crucial role in authenticating documents and ensuring their integrity; failing to meet these responsibilities undermines the public trust and the legal system. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed notarial duties, particularly verifying the identity of signatories and maintaining accurate records.

The Case of the Missing Signatory: Questioning Notarial Negligence

This case stems from a complaint filed by Reuben M. Protacio against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza for allegedly notarizing a board resolution and a Deed of Assignment without requiring the parties to appear before him personally. Protacio claimed that his signature on these documents was forged, and that one of the signatories could not have been present on the date indicated on the resolution. The central legal question revolves around the responsibilities of a notary public and the consequences of failing to fulfill those duties properly.

Protacio’s complaint detailed discrepancies regarding a resolution purportedly signed by him and Nobuyasu Nemoto, authorizing the transfer of corporate rights. He alleged that Nemoto was out of the country on the date of the resolution. Moreover, the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila did not have a copy of the resolution because Mendoza had not submitted his notarial report for that month. Similarly, Protacio denied signing a Deed of Assignment that respondent notarized.

Mendoza defended his actions by stating that while the resolution was dated March 30, 1998, it was signed the following day after Nemoto’s return. He also attributed the missing notarial report to a relocation and insisted that the signatures were authentic. He even provided a letter supposedly confirming Protacio’s request to substitute the corporation with Carmencita I. Fradejas in the Deed of Conditional Sale. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Mendoza negligent and recommended sanctions.

The Supreme Court underscored the crucial role of a notary public, stating that “It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person before the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the document.” This requirement is integral to converting private documents into public documents admissible in court without further proof. Because of this requirement, Act No. 2103 outlines the formal requirements for acknowledgments before a notary public:

Section 1. (a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The court found Mendoza’s failure to ensure Nemoto’s presence and the inaccurate dating of the document as breaches of his notarial duties. The fact that Nemoto was out of the country meant he could not have affirmed the document as represented.

The court emphasized that documents must speak the truth and that a notary public vouches for the parties’ appearance and the document’s validity. Moreover, failing to file a copy of the resolution with the Regional Trial Court was another violation. The court referenced Chapter 11 of Act No. 2657 (Administrative Code), as amended, stating that the notary public must record, enter, and supply copies of all the matters of official act performed as a notary in a register. A certified copy of each month’s entries must be forwarded by the notaries public to the clerk of the Court of First Instance.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that Mendoza’s failure to file the document constituted sufficient grounds for disciplinary action. However, given the lack of conclusive proof that Protacio’s signature was forged, the Court deemed a suspension from notarial commission more appropriate than disbarment.

The decision serves as a reminder to notaries public of their responsibilities. This includes ensuring the personal presence of all signatories, accurately recording dates, and submitting required reports. Not fulfilling these duties can lead to disciplinary actions, affecting their ability to practice as notaries public and undermining confidence in the legal system. It is, therefore, imperative for notaries to diligently observe these requirements to maintain their integrity and uphold the sanctity of notarized documents.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Mendoza was negligent in notarizing documents without ensuring the presence of the parties involved and for failing to submit the required notarial reports.
What did Reuben M. Protacio allege against Atty. Mendoza?	Protacio alleged that Atty. Mendoza notarized a board resolution and a Deed of Assignment with a forged signature without verifying the presence of all signatories, including Protacio himself.
Why was Nobuyasu Nemoto’s presence questioned?	Nemoto’s presence was questioned because records showed he was out of the country on the date he supposedly signed the board resolution, which raised doubts about the authenticity of the notarization.
What was Atty. Mendoza’s defense?	Atty. Mendoza claimed that the resolution was signed a day after the date indicated and attributed the missing notarial report to a relocation of his residence and also claimed that all signatures were authentic.
What did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommend?	The IBP found Atty. Mendoza negligent and recommended the suspension of his notarial commission for two years.
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Mendoza’s commission as a notary public for one year, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the presence of signatories and maintaining accurate records.
What is the significance of a notary public’s role?	A notary public’s role is to authenticate documents, ensuring their integrity and converting them into public documents that are admissible in court without further proof.
What are the consequences of failing to comply with notarial duties?	Failure to comply with notarial duties can lead to disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of the notarial commission, thereby undermining confidence in the legal system.

This case highlights the critical importance of fulfilling notarial duties with diligence and accuracy. The legal system relies on the integrity of notarized documents, and notaries public must uphold their responsibilities to maintain the public trust.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REUBEN M. PROTACIO VS. ATTY. ROBERTO M. MENDOZA, Adm. Case No. 5764, January 13, 2003