The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical role of notaries public in authenticating documents and maintaining public trust. It clarifies that failing to properly record notarized documents in a notarial registry is a serious breach of duty, even if done inadvertently or out of goodwill. This ruling emphasizes the importance of diligence and adherence to the Notarial Law, ensuring the integrity of public documents and preventing potential fraud.

Breach of Trust: When a Notary’s ‘Kababayan’ Becomes a Legal Liability

This case arose from a complaint filed by Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales against Atty. Mario G. Ramos for violating the Notarial Law. The central issue involves a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Rosalinda in favor of her brother, Manuel A. Bernardo, which was notarized by Atty. Ramos. Rosalinda denied signing the deed, and the NBI’s investigation revealed discrepancies in the signature. Atty. Ramos admitted to notarizing the document but claimed he failed to register it in his notarial registry, citing reliance on Manuel’s assurances and inadvertence. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Atty. Ramos’s actions constituted a violation of the Notarial Law and warranted disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court emphasized the explicit obligations and duties of a notary public as outlined in the Notarial Law. The law mandates that notaries maintain a notarial register to record all official acts, including specific details about notarized documents. Section 245 of the Revised Administrative Code states:

Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary x x x x”

Furthermore, Section 246 details the information to be recorded:

The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year.  The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded.   No blank line shall be left between entries x  x x  x “

Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to the revocation of the notary’s commission, according to Section 249. The Court underscored that notarization is not a mere formality but a process imbued with public interest. It transforms a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. As the Court stated in Joson v. Baltazar, a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

This reliance necessitates that notaries exercise utmost care in performing their duties. They must verify the identity of the signatories and ensure that the document reflects their free act and deed. The Court in Villarin v. Sabate Jr. held 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 respondent’s admission that he failed to record the Deed of Absolute Sale in his notarial registry constituted a clear violation of the Notarial Law. Atty. Ramos’s defense, that he acted inadvertently and relied on the assurances of Manuel A. Bernardo, was dismissed by the Court. The Court found it unacceptable that Atty. Ramos disregarded standard notarial procedures out of sympathy for his kababayan (countryman). This demonstrated a lack of respect for the solemnity of an oath and a misunderstanding of the importance of the notarial office. The Court underscored that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents, giving them the force of evidence. As stated in Antillon v. Barcelon:

one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery.

Given that Atty. Ramos was a lawyer, he bore a greater responsibility to uphold the law and avoid falsehoods. His failure to do so warranted disciplinary action. While the Court acknowledged Atty. Ramos’s negligence, it did not deem disbarment necessary. Instead, it imposed sanctions under the Notarial Law and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, stressing that disbarment should only be reserved for instances of serious misconduct where the lawyer should no longer be a member of the bar. The court reasoned that a less severe punishment would be sufficient.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Ramos violated the Notarial Law by failing to record a notarized deed of sale in his notarial registry and whether this warranted disciplinary action.
What is the duty of a notary public regarding record-keeping?	A notary public is required to keep a notarial register and record all official acts, including the nature of the instrument, the parties involved, the date of execution, and the fees collected. This ensures a reliable record of notarized documents.
What happens if a notary public fails to record a document?	Failure to properly record a notarized document is a violation of the Notarial Law and may result in the revocation of the notary’s commission and other disciplinary actions.
Can a notary public be excused for negligence if they acted out of goodwill?	No, a notary public cannot be excused for negligence, even if they acted out of goodwill or relied on assurances from others. The duty to uphold the law is paramount.
What standard of care is expected of a lawyer acting as a notary public?	A lawyer acting as a notary public is held to a higher standard of care due to their oath to uphold the law. They must exercise due diligence in performing their notarial duties.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court revoked Atty. Ramos’s commission as a Notary Public, disqualified him from reappointment and suspended him from the practice of law for six months due to his violation of the Notarial Law.
Why wasn’t Atty. Ramos disbarred?	The Court decided against disbarment, finding that a less severe punishment would suffice, as disbarment is reserved for instances of serious misconduct that prove the lawyer unfit to remain a member of the bar.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization transforms a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and lending it a presumption of regularity.

This case serves as a strong reminder of the responsibilities and duties of notaries public in the Philippines. It highlights the importance of strict compliance with the Notarial Law to maintain the integrity of public documents and uphold public trust in the legal system. Lawyers and notaries public must adhere to these standards, as negligence in performing their duties can lead to serious consequences.

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: ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES VS. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, Adm. Case No. 5645, July 02, 2002