This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to notarial law, reinforcing the principle that a notary public must ensure individuals personally appear before them to acknowledge documents. The Supreme Court clarified that while not all breaches of notarial duty warrant disbarment, they do carry significant consequences. Specifically, the Court found that Atty. Arcangel violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of all signatories, emphasizing that such actions undermine public trust in notarization. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to lawyers of their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the notarial process.

Can a Lawyer be Disciplined for a Defective Waiver and False Notarization?

The case of Alfredo Bon v. Attys. Victor S. Ziga and Antonio A. Arcangel arose from a complaint filed by Alfredo Bon against two lawyers. Bon alleged that Atty. Ziga, through fraud and deception, influenced several individuals (the Bons) to sign a Waiver and Quitclaim, relinquishing their rights to inherited properties. Furthermore, Bon contended that Atty. Arcangel notarized this document despite the Bons not personally appearing before him. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of the two attorneys warranted disciplinary action, specifically disbarment, and whether a third party like Alfredo Bon had standing to bring such a complaint.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and arguments presented. The Court highlighted the complainant’s difficulty in proving fraud or deception on the part of Atty. Ziga, primarily because the Bons were educated individuals who could have understood the contents of the waiver. The Court cited the principle that individuals who sign a contract are presumed to know its contents, reinforcing the need for due diligence on the part of signatories. Significantly, the Bons did not promptly pursue legal action to nullify the Waiver and Quitclaim. While this did not completely absolve Atty. Ziga, it weakened the claim that there was deceit. Despite these allegations, the Court emphasized that the Bons’ failure to promptly challenge the waiver diminished their claim of being defrauded.

However, the Court found Atty. Arcangel’s actions problematic. According to the Public Act No. 2103:

(a) The acknowledgement shall be made 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, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The Court condemned Atty. Arcangel’s act of notarizing the document without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories as a clear violation of notarial law. This act, according to the Court, undermines the integrity and reliability of notarized documents, which are given full faith and credit under the law. The Court underscored that the act of notarization transforms a private document into a public one, enhancing its evidentiary value and ensuring its admissibility in court. Here’s a comparison of expected versus actual conduct:

Duty	Expected Conduct	Actual Conduct
Notarization	Signatories must personally appear before the notary public to acknowledge the document.	Atty. Arcangel notarized the document without the personal appearance of all signatories.

Building on this principle, the Court elaborated that notaries public must exercise utmost care in performing their duties to maintain public confidence in the notarial process. Failure to adhere to these standards not only constitutes a breach of professional responsibility but also diminishes the credibility of the legal system. The court stated:

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

The Court also cited Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in their decision:

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

Considering these rules, the Supreme Court ruled on the appropriate disciplinary measures. While it found no grounds for disbarment against Atty. Ziga, Atty. Arcangel faced sanctions for his breach of notarial duties. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. Additionally, he was suspended from the practice of law for six months. This decision emphasized the need for lawyers to strictly adhere to the requirements of notarial law and uphold the integrity of their profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the lawyers’ actions in procuring a waiver and notarizing it warranted disciplinary action, specifically disbarment.
What was the basis of the complaint against Atty. Ziga?	The complaint alleged that Atty. Ziga used fraud and deception to induce individuals to sign a waiver relinquishing their rights to inherited properties.
Why was the complaint against Atty. Ziga dismissed?	The complaint was dismissed because the individuals who signed the waiver were educated and could have understood the document’s contents, and they did not promptly challenge the waiver in court.
What did Atty. Arcangel do wrong?	Atty. Arcangel notarized the waiver without ensuring that all the signatories personally appeared before him to acknowledge the document.
Why is it important for a notary public to ensure personal appearance?	Ensuring personal appearance is essential because notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. This requires the notary public to certify the identity of the signatories.
What rules did Atty. Arcangel violate?	Atty. Arcangel violated the Notarial Law, Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest conduct), and Rule 10.01 (falsehood or misleading the court) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What were the sanctions imposed on Atty. Arcangel?	Atty. Arcangel’s notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from being a notary public for two years, and he was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Can anyone file a disbarment complaint against a lawyer?	Generally, anyone can file a disbarment complaint if there is evidence of misconduct. However, in cases involving defects in a document, the parties directly affected typically have the strongest standing.

In conclusion, this case reinforces the stringent standards imposed on lawyers, particularly those acting as notaries public. While the Court did not find grounds for disbarment regarding the alleged deception in procuring the waiver, it underscored the crucial importance of adhering to notarial law. This case highlights that maintaining public trust in the legal profession requires strict adherence to established procedures and a commitment to upholding the integrity of legal documents.

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: Alfredo Bon v. Attys. Victor S. Ziga and Antonio A. Arcangel, A.C. No. 5436, May 27, 2004