In Spouses Andre Chambon and Maria Fatima Chambon v. Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a notary public for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court found Atty. Ruiz guilty of notarizing an incomplete document and failing to properly maintain his notarial register, leading to the revocation of his notarial commission, perpetual disqualification from being a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law for one year. This decision underscores the high standard of care expected of notaries public and the serious consequences of failing to meet these obligations, safeguarding the integrity of public documents and legal processes.

A Notary’s Neglect: Can Incomplete Records and Delegated Duties Lead to Disciplinary Action?

The case arose from a complaint filed by Spouses Andre and Maria Fatima Chambon against Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz. The spouses alleged that Atty. Ruiz violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The core of the complaint centered on two documents: a Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and a Release of Mortgage, both purportedly connected to a real estate mortgage (REM) involving Suzette Camasura Remoreras. The Spouses Chambon, as creditors, initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings against Remoreras, their debtor, after she failed to fulfill her loan obligations. The controversy began when Remoreras filed a complaint to halt the foreclosure, presenting a Release of Mortgage document allegedly executed by the Spouses Chambon. The spouses contested the authenticity of this document and discovered irregularities in both the Notice of Loss and the Release of Mortgage, which were notarized by Atty. Ruiz. These irregularities, coupled with discrepancies in Atty. Ruiz’s Notarial Register, led to the filing of the administrative complaint against him.

Central to the Court’s decision was an examination of the notary public’s duties as defined by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. These duties encompass a range of responsibilities, including acknowledgments, oaths, jurats, signature witnessing, and copy certifications. The Court emphasized that these functions are imbued with public interest, transforming private documents into public ones, which are then admissible as evidence without further authentication. This conversion grants notarial documents a presumption of regularity and entitlement to full faith and credit, underscoring the notary’s critical role in the legal system. “For notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making the same admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity; thus, a notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face,” the Supreme Court stated.

The Court scrutinized the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss notarized by Atty. Ruiz. The Court highlighted several deficiencies in the document’s jurat, specifically the absence of competent evidence to verify the identity of the executor, Remoreras. Moreover, the Notarial Register lacked crucial details pertaining to the Notice, such as the title of the instrument, names and addresses of the parties involved, evidence of identity, date and time of notarization, and the type of notarial act performed. According to Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:

Sec. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. – A notary public shall not:

(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.

(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

The Court found that Atty. Ruiz violated these rules by affixing his signature and seal to an incomplete notarial certificate without verifying the executor’s identity. This act, in itself, constituted a breach of the duties imposed on notaries public. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in the notarial register, which meant that he could not delegate this responsibility to a secretary to avoid liability. Additionally, a notary public is expected to maintain a detailed record of every notarial act performed, as mandated by Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states:

RULE VI – NOTARIAL REGISTER

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:

(1) the entry number and page number;

(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;

(3) the type of notarial act;

(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;

(5) the name and address of each principal;

(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;

(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person’s identity;

(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;

(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary’s regular place of work or business; and

(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.

(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.

The Supreme Court referenced several cases to determine the appropriate penalty for Atty. Ruiz’s violations. These cases involved similar infractions, such as failure to make proper entries in the notarial register and affixing signatures to incomplete notarial certificates. After considering these precedents, the Court decided to revoke Atty. Ruiz’s notarial commission, perpetually disqualify him from being a notary public, and suspend him from the practice of law for one year. The Court emphasized that Atty. Ruiz’s negligence and delegation of his notarial duties to his secretary constituted dishonesty, warranting the severe penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding a notarial commission.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Andre Chambon and Maria Fatima Chambon v. Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities and duties of a notary public. The ruling reinforces the principle that notaries public must exercise utmost diligence and care in performing their functions, as their actions carry significant legal weight and public interest. The Court’s imposition of penalties, including the revocation of notarial commission, suspension from the practice of law, and perpetual disqualification from holding a notarial commission, demonstrates the severity with which violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice are treated. By holding notaries public accountable for their actions, the Court aims to uphold the integrity of the notarial process and maintain public trust in the legal system.

FAQs

The Supreme Court’s firm stance in this case underscores the importance of integrity and diligence in notarial practice. The consequences for failing to adhere to the stringent requirements set forth in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice are severe, safeguarding the public’s 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: Spouses Andre Chambon and Maria Fatima Chambon, G.R No. 63276, September 05, 2017