The Supreme Court held that a notary public who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of all affiants violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama was found guilty of misconduct for notarizing a ‘Deed of Donation’ where one of the affiants, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson, was not physically present, as evidenced by immigration records. This decision underscores the importance of verifying the identity and presence of individuals signing documents and reinforces the responsibilities of notaries public in ensuring the integrity and authenticity of notarized documents, thereby safeguarding public trust and confidence in the notarial process.

The Case of the Absent Affiant: Can a Notary Public Certify What Isn’t There?

Emerita B. Mahilum filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama for notarizing a Deed of Donation involving her estranged husband, Rodolfo Mahilum, and their daughter, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. The core issue was whether Atty. Lezama violated his duties as a notary public by attesting to the personal appearance of Jennifer when she was, in fact, abroad. The complainant presented evidence that Jennifer was in the United States on the date the document was notarized, challenging the validity and integrity of the notarization process.

The case unfolded with the complainant, Emerita B. Mahilum, alleging that Atty. Lezama notarized the Deed of Donation on May 24, 2006, falsely attesting to the presence of both Rodolfo and Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. Atty. Lezama countered that all parties were present during the signing, asserting he knew Rodolfo personally and had no reason to doubt his representation that Jennifer had traveled from the USA. However, the Bureau of Immigration certification revealed that Jennifer did not enter the Philippines in 2006, undermining Atty. Lezama’s claim.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to exercise due diligence in verifying Jennifer’s identity. The IBP recommended the revocation of Atty. Lezama’s notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, leading Atty. Lezama to seek reconsideration, arguing that the complainant was not his client and that the notarization caused no damage.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the critical role of a notary public in ensuring the personal appearance of affiants. The Court cited Public Act No. 2103, also known as the Notarial Law, which explicitly requires the affiant to appear before the notary public, thus:

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

Building on this statutory requirement, the Court also referenced Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, which mandates that a notary public must not perform a notarial act unless the affiant is physically present and personally known or identified through competent evidence.

The Court underscored the significance of these rules by quoting Angeles v. Ibañez, stating:

The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties’ free act and deed.

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.

The Supreme Court differentiated between mere carelessness and deliberate disregard of the rules. Carelessness might imply forgetting to verify the identity of a present affiant, whereas Atty. Lezama knowingly attested to the presence of someone who was not there. The Court concluded that Atty. Lezama’s actions constituted a deliberate violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The implications of this misconduct are significant. A notarized document carries a presumption of due execution, and the notary’s signature and seal mislead the public into believing that all affiants personally appeared and attested to the truthfulness of the document’s contents. This misrepresentation can lead to precarious legal consequences should the document later be subject to judicial scrutiny. As the Court emphasized, a notary public must ensure that the persons signing the document are the same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him. This is crucial for verifying the genuineness of the signatures and ensuring the affiant’s free consent.

The Court referenced Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Atty. Lezama’s actions were found to be in direct violation of this rule and the Notarial Law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His incumbent notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective immediately. The Court also issued a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Lezama violated his duties as a notary public by attesting to the personal appearance of Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson when she was not physically present during the notarization of a Deed of Donation. This raised questions about the integrity and validity of the notarization process.
What evidence was presented to show Jennifer’s absence?	The complainant presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration showing that Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson did not enter the Philippines in 2006, the year the Deed of Donation was notarized. This travel record contradicted Atty. Lezama’s claim that Jennifer was present.
What did the IBP recommend?	The IBP recommended the revocation of Atty. Lezama’s notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a Notary Public. This recommendation was based on his failure to exercise due diligence in verifying Jennifer’s identity.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Lezama guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Why is the personal appearance of affiants important in notarization?	The personal appearance of affiants allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the document is the free act and deed of the parties involved. This process transforms a private document into a public one, which can be relied upon in court.
What specific laws did Atty. Lezama violate?	Atty. Lezama violated Public Act No. 2103 (the Notarial Law), Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These laws and rules emphasize the necessity of personal appearance and prohibit deceitful conduct.
What is the difference between carelessness and deliberate disregard in this context?	Carelessness would imply that the affiant was actually present, but the notary public simply forgot to verify their identity. Deliberate disregard, as found in this case, means the affiant was not present, yet the notary public attested to their presence.
What potential consequences arise from improper notarization?	Improper notarization can mislead the public into believing that a document has been duly executed, potentially leading to legal complications and undermining the integrity of legal processes. It also erodes public trust in notarial acts.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities and duties of notaries public in ensuring the integrity of legal documents. The ruling reinforces the need for strict adherence to the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the importance of verifying the identity and presence of individuals signing documents, thereby safeguarding public trust and confidence in the notarial process.

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: EMERITA B. MAHILUM VS. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, A.C. No. 10450, July 30, 2014