In Fabay v. Resuena, the Supreme Court held that an attorney’s act of notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) with deceased individuals as principals constituted gross misconduct, violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath. The Court emphasized the crucial role of notaries public in ensuring the authenticity and reliability of documents, and the severe consequences for those who fail to uphold these standards. This ruling serves as a stern warning to legal professionals, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to notarial procedures and ethical responsibilities.

A Notary’s Neglect: When a Lawyer’s Signature Betrays the Deceased

The case revolves around Gregory Fabay’s complaint against Atty. Rex A. Resuena for gross misconduct. The accusation stems from Atty. Resuena’s notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on October 15, 2003, linked to an ejectment case filed by Virginia Perez and others against Fabay. The SPA purportedly authorized Apolo D. Perez to represent the plaintiffs. However, two of the listed principals, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez, had already passed away in 1988 and 1976, respectively. Further complicating matters, Remedios Perez, the spouse of Amador Perez, signed on behalf of several principals, including the deceased and those residing abroad, allegedly without proper authorization. Fabay argued that Atty. Resuena’s actions violated the Notarial Law and constituted misconduct as a lawyer, leading to the disbarment proceedings.

Atty. Resuena defended his actions by claiming that Remedios Perez was authorized to represent the other co-owners and that the deceased individuals’ names were not included in the acknowledgment portion of the SPA. He also denied participating in barangay conciliations related to the case, providing a certification from the barangay captain. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Resuena to have violated the provisions of the Notarial Law. The IBP-CBD recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, a recommendation later modified by the IBP Board of Governors to a two-year disqualification from notarial practice.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the gravity of the responsibilities entrusted to notaries public. The Court quoted Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, emphasizing that notarization is not a mere formality but an act imbued with public interest:

Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the necessity for notaries to exercise utmost care and diligence in performing their duties, ensuring that individuals signing documents are indeed the persons they claim to be and that they personally appear before the notary. This requirement, as stipulated in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, is paramount to verifying the genuineness of signatures and confirming that the document reflects the party’s free act and deed.

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document – (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

The Court found that Atty. Resuena’s actions clearly violated the notarial law and his oath as a lawyer. The fact that he notarized the SPA despite the death of two principals and the questionable representation of others demonstrated a profound disregard for the integrity of the notarial process. The Court emphasized that Atty. Resuena, being the counsel for the plaintiffs, was likely aware of the circumstances surrounding the case and the fact that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were deceased. This knowledge further aggravated his culpability.

This approach contrasts sharply with the expected standard of conduct for legal professionals. The Court referenced Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, which reiterated the necessity of personal appearance of affiants:

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

The Supreme Court emphasized the ethical obligations of lawyers, citing Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court also highlighted the lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. By notarizing the SPA under the circumstances presented, Atty. Resuena breached these fundamental obligations and compromised the integrity of the legal profession. The ruling underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards and adhering to legal requirements, especially when serving as a notary public.

The Supreme Court ultimately found Atty. Resuena guilty of malpractice as a notary public and of violating the lawyer’s oath, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, he was disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Resuena committed gross misconduct by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) with deceased individuals listed as principals, thereby violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath.
What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)?	A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is a legal document authorizing a person (the attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of another person (the principal) in specific matters, such as representing them in legal proceedings or managing their property.
What does the Notarial Law require of a notary public?	The Notarial Law requires a notary public to ensure that individuals signing documents are the persons they claim to be, that they personally appear before the notary, and that the document reflects their free act and deed.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. It lends credibility and reliability to documents, ensuring they are legally binding.
What ethical rules did Atty. Resuena violate?	Atty. Resuena violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, as well as the lawyer’s oath.
What was the IBP’s recommendation in this case?	The IBP initially recommended the revocation of Atty. Resuena’s notarial commission and a one-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, later modified to a two-year disqualification from notarial practice.
What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Resuena guilty of malpractice and disbarred him from the practice of law, perpetually disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed, ensuring the document’s validity.
What is the consequence of violating the Notarial Law and lawyer’s oath?	Violating the Notarial Law and lawyer’s oath can lead to severe penalties, including suspension or disbarment from the practice of law, as well as disqualification from being a notary public.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the high ethical and professional standards expected of lawyers, particularly when acting as notaries public. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of integrity, diligence, and adherence to legal requirements in the performance of notarial duties. Failure to uphold these standards can result in severe consequences, including disbarment.

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: Gregory Fabay v. Atty. Rex A. Resuena, A.C. No. 8723, January 26, 2016