The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that a lawyer who notarized a document without proper authorization and without the personal appearance of the signatories violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the high ethical standards required of lawyers, especially when performing notarial acts. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that failing to adhere to these standards can result in severe penalties, including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from holding a notarial commission. Ultimately, this case protects the public’s trust in the integrity of notarized documents, ensuring that lawyers uphold their duties with utmost care and diligence.

Forged Trust: When a Notary’s Negligence Undermines Legal Integrity

In Nicanor D. Triol v. Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., the complainant, Nicanor Triol, sought the disbarment of Atty. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr., alleging that the lawyer notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale without the consent or presence of Triol and his sister, Grace. The deed purportedly conveyed a parcel of land co-owned by the siblings. Triol claimed that his sister resided in the United States at the time of the alleged notarization, making her personal appearance impossible. Atty. Agcaoili denied the allegations, asserting that his signature on the deed was forged and that he was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City during the relevant period.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended dismissing the complaint. However, upon review, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this decision, finding Atty. Agcaoili guilty and imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period, and revocation of any existing notarial commission. The IBP’s decision hinged on the lawyer’s failure to adequately substantiate his claim of forgery. The Supreme Court then reviewed the IBP’s findings to determine whether Atty. Agcaoili should be held administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the solemnity and public interest invested in notarization. The Court cited Vda. de Miller v. Miranda, stating that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest.” Because notarization converts a private document into a public document, it is admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. Given this weight, the Court stressed that notaries public must meticulously observe the requirements of their role to maintain public confidence.

According to Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public must ensure that the signatory is personally present during notarization and is either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence. The Court underscored that notarizing a document without the signatory’s personal appearance violates these rules. This requirement ensures the genuineness of the signature and confirms that the document reflects the party’s free act and deed.

The Court also noted that breaching the 2004 Notarial Rules concurrently violates the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). As a lawyer, a notary public takes an oath to uphold the law, and failing to fulfill notarial duties constitutes a breach of this oath. Such conduct involves falsehood and engages in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful behavior. The Court quoted Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In Atty. Agcaoili’s case, the evidence showed that he notarized the subject deed without the required personal appearance of the parties and without possessing the necessary notarial commission. The complainant provided a certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC, confirming that Atty. Agcaoili was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2012. Despite claiming forgery, Atty. Agcaoili failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his defense. The Court emphasized that unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to overcome evidence of a violation.

The Supreme Court referenced several similar cases to justify the penalties imposed on Atty. Agcaoili. These cases demonstrated a pattern of sanctions against notaries public who violated the rules, including suspension from practice, disqualification from holding a notarial commission, and revocation of existing commissions. Given these precedents, the Court found that suspending Atty. Agcaoili from the practice of law for two years, disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period, and revoking his existing commission were appropriate penalties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Agcaoili violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without proper authorization and without the personal appearance of the signatories.
What are the requirements for notarizing a document?	A notary public must ensure that the person signing the document is personally present at the time of notarization and is either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence.
What happens if a notary public violates the notarial rules?	Violating notarial rules can lead to administrative penalties, including suspension from the practice of law, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and revocation of the existing commission.
What is the importance of notarization?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, which underscores the need for notaries to follow procedure accurately.
How does this case relate to the Code of Professional Responsibility?	A breach of notarial rules also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, as it involves dishonesty, deceit, and failure to uphold the law and legal processes.
What evidence did the complainant present in this case?	The complainant presented a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly notarized by Atty. Agcaoili and a certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC, showing that Atty. Agcaoili was not a commissioned notary public at the time.
What was Atty. Agcaoili’s defense?	Atty. Agcaoili claimed that his signature on the deed was forged and that he was not a commissioned notary public during the relevant period. However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Agcaoili guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed penalties of suspension from practice, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and revocation of his commission.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Triol v. Agcaoili reinforces the critical role of notaries public in maintaining the integrity of legal documents and upholding ethical standards within the legal profession. It is a reminder that lawyers must exercise utmost diligence and adhere strictly to the rules governing notarial practice to avoid severe disciplinary actions and to protect 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: NICANOR D. TRIOL v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., A.C. No. 12011, June 26, 2018