The Supreme Court, in this administrative case, addressed the responsibilities of a notary public when acknowledging documents. The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that individuals personally appear before a notary to attest to the contents and truth of documents. Negligence in fulfilling these duties can result in disciplinary action, including suspension from notarial practice. This decision reinforces the integrity of public documents and the reliance placed upon a notary’s verification.

The Case of the Disputed Quarry Consent: Did the Notary Fulfill His Duty?

This case began with a complaint filed by Mena U. Gerona against Atty. Alfredo Datingaling, a notary public, for allegedly falsifying a “Consent to Quarry” document. Gerona claimed that Datingaling notarized the document, making it appear as though she, along with other family members, appeared before him on July 2, 1997, when they did not. Furthermore, the document contained inconsistencies and misrepresented the agreement among the parties involved.

Datingaling countered that the complainant and other parties signed the document on July 2, 1997, in Quezon City, and the document was notarized the following day in Batangas City. He attributed the incorrect date on the acknowledgment to a clerical error by his secretary, stating that he had no part in the falsification. However, the provincial prosecutor found probable cause to charge Datingaling with falsification of a public document, citing discrepancies between notarized and unnotarized copies of the “Consent to Quarry.”

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspending Datingaling from legal practice for one year, citing violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. While acknowledging that a criminal case against Datingaling remained pending, the IBP emphasized that the evidence presented showed a lack of professionalism. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report, suspending his commission as notary public with disqualification for reappointment for two years.

The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP’s findings, addressing both the falsification charge and the violation of notarial duties. While acknowledging the pending criminal case, the Court focused on Datingaling’s failure to properly fulfill his responsibilities as a notary public. The court referenced Act No. 2103, § 1(a), which outlines the requirements for document acknowledgments before a notary public:

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 emphasized that Datingaling had a duty to ensure that the individuals executing the document personally appeared before him and attested to its contents. Furthermore, he failed to address inconsistencies within the document, such as the inclusion of minor signatories represented without proper authorization.

The Court affirmed the importance of the notarial function. When a document is acknowledged before a notary, it becomes a public document, admissible in court without further authentication. Therefore, a notary public must perform their duties with utmost care and diligence. Ultimately, the Court found Datingaling guilty of violating Act No. 2103, § 1(a), but deemed the IBP’s recommended penalty of two-year suspension from his notarial commission to be too severe. Citing the precedent of Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., the Court suspended Datingaling from his commission as a notary public for one year.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Datingaling, as a notary public, properly performed his duties when notarizing the “Consent to Quarry” document, considering allegations of falsification and inconsistencies.
What did Mena U. Gerona accuse Atty. Datingaling of?	Mena U. Gerona accused Atty. Datingaling of falsifying a document and notarizing it despite knowing its falsity, specifically the “Consent to Quarry” agreement. She alleged that she and her family did not appear before him as the document indicated.
What was Atty. Datingaling’s defense?	Atty. Datingaling claimed that the document was signed by the parties in Quezon City and notarized the next day in Batangas City. He attributed the incorrect date to a clerical error and denied any participation in falsification.
What did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommend?	The IBP initially recommended suspending Atty. Datingaling from the practice of law for one year. This was later modified to a two-year suspension from his commission as a notary public, along with disqualification for reappointment.
What is Act No. 2103, § 1(a)?	Act No. 2103, § 1(a) outlines the requirements for acknowledging instruments before a notary public, stating that the notary must certify the identity of the person acknowledging the instrument and ensure it’s their free act and deed.
How did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Datingaling guilty of violating Act No. 2103, § 1(a) and suspended him from his commission as a notary public for one year, reducing the IBP’s recommended two-year suspension.
Why was the penalty reduced from the IBP’s recommendation?	The penalty was reduced as the Court considered the IBP’s initial recommendation too severe, citing a previous similar case, and instead settled for a one-year suspension from his commission as a notary public.
What is the significance of a notary public’s role?	The notary public’s role is crucial because it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof. The public places faith in the integrity of these documents.

This case serves as a clear reminder of the critical role notaries public play in ensuring the integrity of legal documents. The decision reinforces the duty of notaries to verify the identities of those appearing before them and to ensure the accuracy of the documents they notarize. Failure to do so can lead to serious consequences, underscoring the importance of upholding the standards of the profession.

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: Mena U. Gerona v. Atty. Alfredo Datingaling, A.C. No. 4801, February 27, 2003