The Supreme Court has ruled that a notary public is not automatically liable for the falsity of statements contained in a document they notarized, provided they properly verified the affiant’s identity and that the affiant personally attested to the document’s contents. This decision clarifies the extent of a notary public’s responsibility, emphasizing that their primary duty is to verify identities and attestations, not to investigate the truthfulness of the document’s contents, unless there’s clear evidence of their knowledge of the falsehood. This ruling protects notaries public from undue liability while ensuring they fulfill their essential duties in authenticating documents.

When a Notary’s Seal Doesn’t Guarantee Truth: The Case of the Disputed Homeowners’ Letter

This case revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Allan S. Amazona for notarizing a letter that complainants alleged contained false statements. The letter, signed by Michelle B. Lotho, a Director and Auditor of a homeowners’ association, was used to facilitate the association’s registration. Complainants argued that Atty. Amazona knew the letter’s contents were false and, therefore, should be held liable. The central legal question is whether a notary public can be held administratively liable for notarizing a document containing false statements, absent proof of their knowledge of the falsehood.

The complainants, Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson, and Teresita Edosada, claimed that the letter falsely stated that most buyers of the subdivision lots were out of the country, making it difficult to secure their signatures. They further alleged that the list of members attached to the letter was also falsified. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found no merit in the complaint, a decision the Supreme Court ultimately upheld. The IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera opined that the act of notarizing the letter did not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Notarial Rules. According to the Commissioner, Atty. Amazona merely attested that Lotho personally appeared before him and affirmed the truth of the letter’s contents.

The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence, stating that in disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations with substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that mere allegations without proof are insufficient, especially considering the severe consequences of disbarment. As stated in the decision,

Every person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Settled is the rule that in disbarment proceedings, the complainant must satisfactorily establish the allegations of his or her complaint through substantial evidence. Mere allegations without proof are disregarded considering the gravity of the penalty prayed for. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.^[12]

The Court found that the complainants failed to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that Atty. Amazona knowingly notarized a false document. The ruling aligns with the principle that a notary public’s primary duty is to authenticate a signature, not to verify the truthfulness of the document’s contents. This distinction is crucial in understanding the scope of a notary’s responsibility. The role of a notary public is primarily to prevent fraud and ensure that documents are executed by the appropriate individuals, not to act as an investigator of facts. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the responsibility for the truthfulness of the statements lies with the affiant, in this case, Michelle B. Lotho.

The Court further clarified that the duties of a notary public are outlined in the Notarial Rules. These rules primarily focus on verifying the identity of the affiant and ensuring that the affiant personally appears before the notary to sign the document. The rules do not impose a duty on the notary to conduct an independent investigation into the truthfulness of the contents of the document. The Court acknowledged that holding notaries liable for the truthfulness of every document they notarize would place an unreasonable burden on them. It would also deter individuals from serving as notaries public, disrupting the efficient administration of justice. The decision referenced the IBP’s findings, stating,

The Court agrees with the IBP that the complained act does not constitute any violation of the Rules of Court, the Notarial Rules, nor the Code of Professional Responsibility.^[13] Respondent merely performed his duty when he attested to the fact that Lotho personally appeared and signed the said letter before him. We agree with the IBP that the truth or falsity of the contents of the letter is the responsibility of the affiant Lotho and not of the respondent, especially since no substantial evidence was presented to prove that he knowingly notarized a false document.

The ruling underscores the importance of understanding the specific duties and responsibilities of a notary public. While notaries play a crucial role in authenticating documents and preventing fraud, their duties are limited to verifying identities and attestations. They are not required to act as fact-checkers or investigators of the truthfulness of the document’s contents. The absence of evidence showing that Atty. Amazona had knowledge of the false statements in the letter was critical to the Court’s decision. Had such evidence existed, the outcome may have been different. This case serves as a reminder that notarial duties must be performed with diligence and in accordance with the Notarial Rules. However, it also protects notaries from being held liable for matters outside the scope of their duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a notary public can be held liable for notarizing a document containing false statements, without proof that the notary knew of the falsehood.
What did the complainants allege against Atty. Amazona?	The complainants alleged that Atty. Amazona notarized a letter containing false statements, knowing that the statements were untrue. They claimed this was a violation of his duties as a lawyer and notary public.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The IBP recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Atty. Amazona, finding no evidence of wrongdoing. The IBP concluded that the act of notarizing the letter did not violate the Notarial Rules.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s decision and dismissed the complaint against Atty. Amazona. The Court found that the complainants failed to provide substantial evidence that Atty. Amazona knowingly notarized a false document.
What is the primary duty of a notary public?	The primary duty of a notary public is to verify the identity of the affiant and ensure that the affiant personally appears before the notary to sign the document. They are not required to investigate the truthfulness of the document’s contents.
What evidence would be needed to hold a notary liable for notarizing a false document?	To hold a notary liable, there must be substantial evidence proving that the notary knew the document contained false statements at the time of notarization. Mere suspicion or allegation is not enough.
What is the significance of the presumption of innocence in this case?	The presumption of innocence requires the complainants to prove their allegations against Atty. Amazona with substantial evidence. The lack of such evidence led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Does this ruling protect notaries public from all liability?	No, this ruling protects notaries public from liability for the truthfulness of a document’s contents unless it is proven that they had knowledge of the falsehood. They are still responsible for fulfilling their primary duties, such as verifying identities and attestations.

This case highlights the importance of clearly defining the duties and responsibilities of a notary public. While notaries play a crucial role in ensuring the authenticity of documents, their primary responsibility lies in verifying identities and attestations, not in investigating the truthfulness of the document’s content. This decision protects notaries from undue liability while reinforcing the need for them to perform their duties diligently and in accordance with the Notarial Rules.

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: CLARA R. ICK, RUBY ELINBERGSSON AND TERESITA EDOSADA, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. ALLAN S. AMAZONA, RESPONDENT., G.R No. 65941, February 26, 2020