In Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani v. Atty. Renato G. Gasmen, the Supreme Court held Atty. Gasmen liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance. This ruling underscores the critical duty of notaries public to verify the identity of signatories and ensure the integrity of notarized documents. It serves as a stern reminder that failure to perform these duties undermines public trust and the legal system.

A Notary’s Breach: When a Signature Leads to Suspension

This case stems from a complaint filed by Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani against Atty. Renato G. Gasmen, a notary public. Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a loan application bearing Sappayani’s forged signature. These documents allowed a third party to obtain a loan on Sappayani’s behalf without his knowledge or consent, raising a crucial question: What is the extent of a notary public’s responsibility in verifying the identity of individuals signing documents?

The controversy unfolded when Sappayani discovered the fraudulent loan taken out in his name. The SPA, purportedly signed by him and notarized by Atty. Gasmen, authorized Newtrade Goodwill Corporation (NGC) to secure a loan from Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI). Sappayani vehemently denied signing the SPA or knowing the individual who represented NGC. Crucially, he stated that he could not have been present at the notarization as he was undergoing training in General Santos City at the time.

In his defense, Atty. Gasmen claimed that the notarization was a mere ministerial act, done after the loan proceeds had already been released. He also asserted that Sappayani’s signature had been compared to specimen cards held by AMWSLAI. However, this defense did not hold water, because notarization requires diligence and cannot be treated as a mere formality, especially considering the legal weight attached to notarized documents.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP highlighted that Atty. Gasmen failed to exercise the reasonable diligence expected of a notary public, particularly by not ensuring Sappayani’s personal appearance. This failure led to the notarization of a forged SPA, resulting in significant harm to Sappayani.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the importance of personal appearance before a notary public. The Court referenced Act No. 2103, which stipulates that the notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the document is known to him and that the person is the same individual who executed it. This requirement ensures that the document is indeed the free act and deed of the person involved.

Moreover, the Court cited Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, which explicitly prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or properly identified. This rule reinforces the necessity of personal appearance and proper identification to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of notarized documents.

The Court firmly rejected Atty. Gasmen’s argument that notarization was a mere ministerial act.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization.

This statement underscores that notarization carries significant legal weight and cannot be treated lightly.

Atty. Gasmen’s actions also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which states:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

By notarizing the forged SPA, Atty. Gasmen engaged in conduct that eroded public trust in the legal profession. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the penalties recommended by the IBP, underscoring the seriousness of the offense.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court considered that Atty. Gasmen did not deny notarizing documents without the presence of the affiant. This implied an admission of a practice that facilitated fraud. Therefore, the Court imposed the following penalties: suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his incumbent commission as a notary public, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court warned that any repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

This case serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the duties and responsibilities of notaries public in the Philippines. It emphasizes the importance of verifying the identity of signatories and ensuring their personal appearance before notarizing documents. The ruling safeguards the integrity of notarized documents, which are relied upon for various legal and commercial transactions.

The implications of this decision extend beyond notaries public. It reminds all legal professionals of their ethical obligations to uphold the integrity of the legal system. It also highlights the need for individuals to be vigilant in protecting their personal information and preventing identity theft. By enforcing these standards, the Supreme Court aims to maintain public trust in the legal profession and the notarization process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Gasmen violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance.
What did Sappayani allege against Atty. Gasmen?	Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a loan application bearing his forged signature, allowing a third party to obtain a loan without his consent.
What was Atty. Gasmen’s defense?	Atty. Gasmen claimed that the notarization was a mere ministerial act after the loan proceeds had been released and that Sappayani’s signature had been compared to specimen cards.
What did the IBP find?	The IBP found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to exercise reasonable diligence.
What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Gasmen?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Gasmen from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance is crucial to verify the identity of the signatory and ensure that the document is their free act and deed, preventing fraud and maintaining the integrity of notarized documents.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the duties of notaries public to verify identities, upholds the integrity of notarized documents, and reminds legal professionals of their ethical obligations.
What should individuals do to protect themselves from similar fraud?	Individuals should be vigilant in protecting their personal information, monitoring their financial accounts, and promptly reporting any unauthorized transactions or suspicious activities.

In conclusion, the Sappayani v. Gasmen case underscores the vital role of notaries public in safeguarding the integrity of legal documents. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to all legal professionals of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding 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: FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 7073, September 01, 2015