The Supreme Court held that a lawyer cannot be held administratively liable for acts performed as a notary public if those acts were compliant with the laws and regulations in effect at the time of notarization. This decision underscores the principle that legal compliance is judged based on the prevailing laws at the time of the act, not subsequent regulations. It highlights the importance of adhering to the specific notarial requirements in place when notarizing documents to avoid disciplinary action.

When Old Laws Meet New Scrutiny: A Notary’s Defense

This case, In Re: Decision Dated September 26, 2012 In OMB-M-A-10-023-A, etc. Against Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan, arose from a decision by the Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) regarding a notarized Deed of Partition. The Ombudsman noted that the Deed was notarized by Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan on July 23, 2003, but one of the signatories had passed away on August 23, 2001. This discrepancy led the Ombudsman to furnish a copy of the decision to the Supreme Court for appropriate action against Atty. Diuyan.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition based on the affiants’ Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). The resolution of this issue hinges on determining which set of rules and laws should govern the evaluation of Atty. Diuyan’s conduct as a notary public.

Atty. Diuyan admitted to notarizing the Deed of Partition in his capacity as District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in Mati City. He explained that the individuals appeared before him with the document, and after confirming its truthfulness with their CTCs, he notarized the document for free as they were considered indigents. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Diuyan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, recommending a revocation of his notarial commission for one year. The IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the report but increased the penalty, revoking his commission, disqualifying him for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months.

The Supreme Court approached this case by considering the timeline of events and the relevant legal framework at each point. Central to the Court’s analysis was the principle that legal duties of a Notary Public are “impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy”. However, this recognition does not permit retroactive application of notarial standards.

“[A] lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation his duties as Notary-Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench.”

The Court emphasized that the applicable law at the time of notarization was the notarial law under Title IV, Chapter 11, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code, specifically Section 251. This section requires that every notarized document should certify that the parties presented their proper residence certificates (cedula) or are exempt from the residence tax, and the notary public should enter the number, place of issue, and date of each residence certificate.

SECTION 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of (cedula) residence tax. – Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper (cedula) residence certificates or are exempt from the (cedula) residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of each (cedula) residence certificate as aforesaid.

Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 465 also mandated the presentation of a residence certificate when acknowledging documents before a notary public. Thus, the Court found that the IBP erred in applying the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to hold Atty. Diuyan liable because the Deed was notarized before these rules took effect.

Section 6. Presentation of residence certificate upon certain occasions. – When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges any document before a notary public, x x x it shall be the duty of such person or officer of such corporation with whom such transaction is had or business done or from whom any salary or wage is received to require the exhibition of the residence certificates showing the payment of the residence,taxes by such person: Provided, however, That the presentation of the residence certificate shall not be required in connection with the registration of a voter.

The Supreme Court considered the context in which Atty. Diuyan acted. As the District Public Attorney, he was approached by indigent farmers who lacked personal identification cards but presented their CTCs. These individuals presented themselves as the affiants of the Deed and signed it in his presence. There were no apparent irregularities on the face of the Deed that should have alerted Atty. Diuyan to question the circumstances surrounding its execution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the notarization facilitated the farmers’ right to divide the title in their favor as beneficiaries, which the Ombudsman itself had deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Diuyan did not violate his duties as a Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of evaluating a notary’s conduct based on the laws and regulations in effect at the time of the notarization. This ruling provides clarity on the application of notarial laws and protects notaries from being penalized based on retroactive application of stricter regulations.

This case reflects the fundamental legal principle against retroactive application of laws. A law should only govern actions or events that occur after its enactment. This principle ensures fairness and predictability, as individuals and entities should be able to rely on the laws in effect at the time they act.

The Supreme Court’s decision is aligned with the principle of legality, which dictates that no one should be penalized for an act that was not expressly prohibited by law at the time it was committed. By applying the laws in effect at the time of notarization, the Court upheld this principle and protected Atty. Diuyan from unjust disciplinary action. This highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding legal certainty and ensuring fairness in the application of laws.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Diuyan should be held liable for notarizing a document based on the laws in effect at the time of notarization, or based on later, stricter regulations.
What did the Ombudsman initially find?	The Ombudsman noted a discrepancy regarding the date of the Deed of Partition and the death of one of the signatories, leading them to forward the matter to the Supreme Court for review.
What was the role of the IBP in this case?	The IBP investigated the matter and initially found Atty. Diuyan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, recommending sanctions that were later modified by the IBP Board of Governors.
What law was in effect at the time of notarization?	At the time of notarization (July 23, 2003), the applicable laws were the notarial law under Title IV, Chapter 11, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code and Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 465.
What did the old law require for notarization?	The old law required the presentation of residence certificates (cedula) or proof of exemption from residence tax, and did not mandate the stringent identification requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of Atty. Diuyan?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atty. Diuyan because his actions were compliant with the laws in effect at the time of notarization, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice could not be applied retroactively.
What evidence did the affiants present during notarization?	The affiants, who were indigent farmers, presented their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) since they lacked other forms of identification.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for notaries public?	This ruling means that notaries public will be evaluated based on the notarial laws and regulations in effect at the time they performed the notarial act, protecting them from retroactive application of stricter rules.

This case reinforces the principle that legal standards are determined by the laws in force at the time of the action, ensuring fairness and predictability in legal assessments. It serves as a reminder for legal professionals to stay informed of the specific requirements of notarial laws applicable during their practice.

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: IN RE:DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A, ETC.AGAINST ATTY.ROBELITO B. DIUYAN, A.C. No. 9676, April 02, 2018