In the case of Rolando T. Ko v. Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a lawyer who notarized deeds of sale with incomplete details and without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories. The Court found Atty. Uy-Lampasa guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the critical importance of a notary public’s role in verifying the identity and ensuring the voluntary participation of all parties in a document, emphasizing the duty to uphold the integrity of the notarial process. It serves as a reminder that failure to comply with notarial duties can lead to serious consequences, including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.

When a Notary’s Seal Cracks: Integrity Under Scrutiny

The case originated from a complaint filed by Rolando T. Ko against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (CPR) and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The core of the complaint revolved around Atty. Uy-Lampasa’s notarization of two deeds of sale involving Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings. These deeds were questioned due to discrepancies in the signatories and the lack of personal appearance of all parties during notarization. Further allegations included the filing of a malicious estafa case against Ko’s son and the Sultan siblings, as well as the failure to indicate mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) compliance in court pleadings.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended the revocation of Atty. Uy-Lampasa’s notarial commission and a six-month suspension from the practice of law. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, delved deeper into the specifics of the case, particularly focusing on the alleged violations of notarial rules.

Regarding the MCLE compliance, the Court disagreed with the IBP’s finding of liability. B.M. 850 mandates continuing legal education for members of the IBP. However, the rules provide a process for addressing non-compliance, including a notice and a 60-day period to rectify any deficiencies. The Court noted that Atty. Uy-Lampasa was initially exempt from MCLE requirements due to her prior position as a judge and that she eventually complied with the requirements within the prescribed period. Thus, the Court found no basis to hold her liable for MCLE non-compliance.

However, the Court affirmed the IBP’s finding of liability concerning the violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice. The act of notarization carries significant public interest, requiring notaries public to exercise the highest degree of care in fulfilling their duties. The Court found that Atty. Uy-Lampasa failed to meet this standard when she notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale with incomplete details and without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories.

Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits the notarization of incomplete instruments or documents. The Court emphasized that Atty. Uy-Lampasa violated this provision by notarizing deeds of sale despite the absence of signatures and identification details of some vendors. Furthermore, the identification presented was merely the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) Number, which the Supreme Court has held is not competent evidence of identity for lack of photograph and signature of the individual concerned.

Compounding the issue, several vendors claimed they did not personally appear before Atty. Uy-Lampasa during the notarization. Counter-affidavits from Victoriano, Crispin, Felix, and Juanito Sultan attested that they did not appear before the notary public, contradicting the acknowledgments in the deeds. This directly contravenes Section 2, Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which mandates the personal presence of signatories at the time of notarization. According to the rule:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. — xxx

(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.

This requirement ensures the genuineness of the signature and verifies that the person executing the document is indeed who they claim to be. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of this requirement, noting in Ferguson v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 59, 65, that “The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature.”

By affixing her signature and notarial seal under such circumstances, Atty. Uy-Lampasa misled the public into believing that the parties personally appeared before her and attested to the contents of the documents. The Court stressed that such conduct not only jeopardizes the rights of the parties involved but also undermines the integrity of the notarial system. As a result, the respondent was held liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

The Supreme Court cited Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. It also cited Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By violating the Notarial Rules, Atty. Uy-Lampasa was found to have also violated these provisions of the CPR.

The Court noted the existing jurisprudence regarding penalties for notarial violations. In line with these precedents, the Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the IBP Board: suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of her notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing deeds of sale with incomplete details and without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories.
What specific violations was Atty. Uy-Lampasa found guilty of?	She was found guilty of violating Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing incomplete documents, as well as Section 2 of Rule IV for notarizing documents when the signatories were not personally present.
Why was the MCLE violation charge dismissed?	The Supreme Court found that Atty. Uy-Lampasa was initially exempt from MCLE requirements due to her position as a judge, and she subsequently complied with the requirements within the prescribed period, making the charge baseless.
What is the importance of a notary public verifying the identity of signatories?	Verifying the identity ensures the genuineness of the signature and confirms that the person executing the document is indeed who they claim to be, which is crucial for the integrity and enforceability of the document.
What is considered competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules?	The Rules require at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) is not considered competent evidence.
What penalties did Atty. Uy-Lampasa receive?	She was suspended from the practice of law for six months, her notarial commission was revoked, and she was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
What ethical duties did Atty. Uy-Lampasa violate?	She violated Canon 1 of the CPR, requiring lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Rule 1.01, prohibiting lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
What is the significance of the personal presence requirement in notarization?	It ensures that the notary public can verify the genuineness of the signature and that the person executing the document is doing so voluntarily and with full understanding of its contents.
Can a notary public notarize a document if some of the signatories are not present?	No, the Notarial Rules explicitly prohibit notarization if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization, or if the signatory is not known to the notary or identified through competent evidence.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to all notaries public of their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the notarial process. The failure to adhere to these standards not only jeopardizes the validity of legal documents but also undermines public trust in the legal profession. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public must exercise utmost diligence in ensuring compliance with all requirements of 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: ROLANDO T. KO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 11584, March 06, 2019