The Supreme Court in Jonar Santiago v. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan emphasized the critical importance of notaries public adhering to the strict requirements of the Notarial Law. The Court found Atty. Rafanan liable for failing to properly record details of affiants’ identification and failing to maintain a complete notarial register. This decision underscores that notaries public must diligently comply with all notarial duties to maintain the integrity and reliability of legal documents, reinforcing public trust in the notarization process.

When a Notary’s Oversight Undermines Legal Trust

This case originated from a complaint filed by Jonar Santiago against Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, accusing the latter of multiple violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Santiago alleged that Atty. Rafanan, in notarizing several documents, failed to note the affiants’ cedula or community tax certificates, neglected to enter details of the notarized documents in his notarial register, and did not include his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents. Furthermore, Santiago claimed that Atty. Rafanan executed an affidavit favoring his client in a case where he was actively representing them, and engaged in intimidating behavior towards Santiago after a hearing.

Atty. Rafanan admitted to notarizing the affidavits but argued that the non-notation of residence certificates was permissible for affidavits related to court cases. He also claimed that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients when essential to the ends of justice. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Rafanan had indeed violated the Notarial Law, leading to the Supreme Court’s review of the matter. The central legal question was whether Atty. Rafanan’s actions constituted a breach of his duties as a notary public and a violation of the ethical standards expected of lawyers.

The Supreme Court firmly sided with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the Notarial Law’s requirements. The Court highlighted that notaries public are expected to meticulously follow the prescribed formalities to ensure the integrity of notarized documents. Failure to record the affiant’s residence certificate or its equivalent, and neglecting to log the notarized documents in the notarial register, were deemed clear violations of the law. The Court referenced the case of Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos to reinforce the importance of notarization, stating that it converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.

Building on this principle, the Court rejected Atty. Rafanan’s defense that these requirements were not strictly applicable to affidavits used in court proceedings. The Court clarified that the Notarial Law makes no such exceptions and applies uniformly to all notarized documents. Moreover, the Court noted Atty. Rafanan’s failure to certify that he had personally examined the affiants and ensured they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits, as required by Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As defense counsel, he was not exempt from this requirement, which further underscored his dereliction of notarial duties. Lawyers must uphold the laws of the land and must keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence.

Although Atty. Rafanan was found to have violated the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court opted for a more lenient penalty than disbarment. Disbarment, the Court noted, is reserved for cases of serious misconduct that profoundly affect a lawyer’s standing and character. Given the nature of the infractions and the absence of clear evidence of deceit, the Court deemed a fine of P3,000 with a warning against future violations as sufficient disciplinary action. The Court also addressed the allegation that Atty. Rafanan acted as a witness for his client, violating Rule 12.08 of the CPR. The Court acknowledged that lawyers should avoid testifying for their clients unless it involves formal matters or is essential for justice.

Despite the potential conflict of interest, the Court found no administrative liability in this specific instance, because the Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation, which is merely inquisitorial and did not constitute a full trial. Moreover, the Court acknowledged the lawyer’s duty to provide a defense to the client, particularly in criminal cases. However, the Court cautioned Atty. Rafanan against accepting employment in cases where he anticipates being an essential witness, and advised him to withdraw from active prosecution should his testimony become indispensable.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the charge that Atty. Rafanan harassed and threatened the complainant, citing a lack of supporting evidence. The respondent’s version of events was considered more credible due to corroborating affidavits from police officers and certifications from the Cabanatuan City Police. In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder of the responsibilities entrusted to notaries public and the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in the practice of law. This case illustrates the consequences of neglecting notarial duties and underscores the need for continuous legal education among lawyers to ensure compliance with prevailing laws and procedures.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Rafanan violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to properly execute his duties as a notary public.
What specific violations was Atty. Rafanan accused of?	Atty. Rafanan was accused of failing to note affiants’ identification details, neglecting to record notarized documents in his register, and improperly executing a certification in affidavits.
What did the IBP recommend in this case?	The IBP recommended that Atty. Rafanan be fined and warned for violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility related to notarial duties.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the matter?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision, finding Atty. Rafanan guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5, and fined him P3,000 with a warning.
What is the importance of proper notarization?	Proper notarization converts private documents into public documents, making them admissible in court without further proof of authenticity, and is thus imbued with public interest.
Did Atty. Rafanan’s defense excuse his actions?	No, the Court rejected his defense that non-compliance was acceptable for affidavits in court proceedings, stating the Notarial Law applies uniformly to all documents.
Why was Atty. Rafanan not disbarred?	The Court deemed disbarment too severe, reserving it for serious misconduct impacting a lawyer’s standing and character, and considered the fine sufficient in this case.
What should lawyers do if they might be essential witnesses in a case?	Lawyers should avoid accepting employment in matters where they know or believe they may be essential witnesses and should withdraw from active prosecution if their testimony becomes necessary.

This case reinforces the need for lawyers acting as notaries public to exercise utmost diligence and care in performing their duties. Strict adherence to the Notarial Law and the ethical standards of the legal profession is paramount to upholding the integrity of legal documents and maintaining public trust in the legal system.

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: Jonar Santiago, vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 05, 2004