The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while a lawyer violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document for relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity, disbarment was not warranted. The Court instead reprimanded the lawyer and temporarily disqualified him from performing notarial acts, emphasizing that a less severe punishment was sufficient given the circumstances. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to notarial rules while recognizing that not every violation merits the most severe disciplinary action.

When Family Ties Blur Ethical Lines: A Notary’s Dilemma

In Bernard N. Jandoquile v. Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Revilla for notarizing a complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. The complainant also alleged that Atty. Revilla failed to require the affiants to present valid identification cards. Atty. Revilla admitted to the allegations but argued that his actions did not warrant disbarment, claiming he acted more as counsel than as a notary public. The central legal question was whether notarizing a document for relatives and not requiring identification, in this specific context, constituted grounds for disbarment.

The Court, in its resolution, highlighted the violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which explicitly disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the principal is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. The rule states:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

x x x x

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

Atty. Revilla’s admission that he notarized the document for relatives squarely fell within this prohibition. The Court emphasized that the notarial certificate clearly indicated his role as a notary public, thereby negating his claim that he acted solely as counsel. The Supreme Court stated, “Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document.” However, the Court also considered the context of the violation.

Addressing the second charge regarding the lack of identification, the Court acknowledged that a notary public is not required to demand identification if the affiants are personally known. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Section 6, Rule II defines a “jurat” and allows for personal knowledge as an alternative to competent evidence of identity. It provides that a “jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. In this case, Atty. Revilla knew the affiants personally as they were his relatives, justifying his decision not to require identification.

The Supreme Court, however, pointed out Atty. Revilla’s failure to indicate in the jurat that he personally knew the affiants. While this omission did not negate his defense, it highlighted a procedural lapse. Balancing these considerations, the Court determined that disbarment was too harsh a penalty for the violations committed. The Court was guided by the principle that removal from the Bar should be reserved for severe misconduct, as highlighted in Maria v. Cortez where the Court stated that “removal from the Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe such as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.”

The Court weighed the seriousness of the offense against the potential consequences for the attorney. It considered that Atty. Revilla’s actions did not involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or gross immoral conduct, which are typically grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court opted for a more proportionate response, opting to reprimand Atty. Revilla and disqualify him from acting as a notary public for three months. This decision serves as a reminder to attorneys of their ethical obligations while acknowledging that not every misstep warrants the ultimate professional sanction.

Ultimately, this case reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly concerning disqualifications based on affinity. It also offers guidance on the application of penalties, suggesting that sanctions should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the attorney’s overall conduct. By choosing a less severe punishment, the Supreme Court balanced the need to uphold ethical standards with the recognition that attorneys, like all professionals, may occasionally err.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an attorney should be disbarred for notarizing a document for relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity and not requiring identification.
What is the fourth civil degree of affinity?	The fourth civil degree of affinity refers to the relationship between a person and the relatives of their spouse, up to the fourth level of kinship. This includes relatives such as cousins-in-law.
What does the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice say about disqualifications?	The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the principal is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
Can a notary public notarize a document if they personally know the affiant?	Yes, if the notary public personally knows the affiant, they are not required to present additional identification, according to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Revilla violated the Rules on Notarial Practice but that disbarment was not warranted. He was reprimanded and disqualified from acting as a notary public for three months.
Why wasn’t Atty. Revilla disbarred?	The Court determined that the violations did not involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or gross immoral conduct, and that a less severe punishment would suffice.
What is a “jurat”?	A “jurat” is a clause at the end of an affidavit stating when, where, and before whom it was sworn. It confirms that the affiant appeared before the notary public and swore to the truth of the contents.
What is the significance of this ruling for lawyers?	This ruling serves as a reminder for lawyers to strictly adhere to the Rules on Notarial Practice and to be aware of disqualifications based on affinity. It also provides guidance on the proportionality of penalties for ethical violations.

This case provides valuable insights into the ethical responsibilities of attorneys acting as notaries public and the application of disciplinary measures for violations of notarial rules. It highlights the importance of understanding and adhering to the specific requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to avoid potential disciplinary actions.

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: BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 9514, April 10, 2013