The Importance of Diligence in Notarial Acts: Lessons from a Disbarment Case

Virgilio C. Rigon, Jr. v. Atty. Eric P. Subia, A.C. No. 10249, September 07, 2020

Imagine purchasing a piece of land, only to discover years later that the deed of sale was notarized with the signatures of individuals long deceased. This nightmare scenario became a reality for the heirs of Placido Rigon, leading to a landmark disbarment case against Atty. Eric P. Subia. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical role of notaries public in safeguarding the integrity of property transactions and the dire consequences of negligence.

In the case of Virgilio C. Rigon, Jr. v. Atty. Eric P. Subia, the central issue revolved around a notary public’s failure to verify the authenticity of a deed of sale, which led to the fraudulent transfer of a portion of land. The case highlights the responsibilities of notaries under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the repercussions of failing to uphold these standards.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Notaries public are entrusted with a significant public duty. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which govern their actions, emphasize the importance of verifying the identity and presence of signatories during notarization. Sections 6 and 8 of Rule II, and Sections 2 and 5(b) of Rule IV, specifically outline these obligations:

Section 6, Rule II: ‘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 as defined by these Rules; (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.

Section 8, Rule II: ‘Notarial Certificate’ refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary’s signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules.

Section 2, Rule IV: 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.

Section 5(b), Rule IV: A notary public shall not affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

These provisions ensure that notaries public act as impartial witnesses to the signing of documents, thereby preventing fraud and ensuring the document’s legal validity. For example, if a notary public notarizes a deed of sale without verifying the identity of the signatories, it could lead to disputes over property ownership, as seen in the Rigon case.

Chronicle of the Case

Virgilio C. Rigon, Jr., acting on behalf of Placido Rigon’s heirs, filed a complaint against Atty. Eric P. Subia, alleging that Subia notarized a deed of sale involving a portion of land owned by Placido. The deed purportedly bore the signatures of Placido and his wife, Telesfora, who had both passed away long before the document’s alleged execution date.

The complaint was supported by evidence showing that the deed’s docket number in Subia’s notarial register actually referred to a different document, a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons. Despite Subia’s denial and claim of forgery, the Supreme Court found him liable for negligence under the Notarial Rules.

The procedural journey included the following steps:

• Virgilio Jr. filed an Affidavit Complaint against Subia.
• The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
• The IBP found Subia liable for violating the Notarial Rules and recommended disciplinary action.
• The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP’s findings and issued its decision.

The Court emphasized the importance of notarial acts in maintaining public trust:

‘Time and time again, the Court has stressed that the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and the act of notarization is imbued with substantial public interest.’

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the accountability of notaries for the use of their seals, even in cases of alleged forgery:

‘Indeed, assuming that another person may have forged Atty. Subia’s signature, the mere fact that Atty. Subia’s notarial seal appears on the document and considering that he failed to deny the authenticity of the same, he bears the accountability and responsibility for the use thereof even if such was done without his consent and knowledge.’

Practical Implications and Lessons

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a stern reminder to notaries public of their duty to uphold the integrity of legal documents. The ruling emphasizes that negligence in notarization can lead to severe professional consequences, including suspension from legal practice and prohibition from serving as a notary public.

For property owners and buyers, this case underscores the importance of ensuring that deeds and other legal documents are notarized correctly. It is crucial to work with reputable notaries who adhere strictly to the Notarial Rules.

Key Lessons:

• Notaries public must verify the identity and presence of signatories before notarizing any document.
• Negligence in notarization can lead to the loss of property and legal disputes.
• Individuals should be vigilant in checking the authenticity of notarized documents, especially in property transactions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the responsibilities of a notary public?

A notary public is responsible for verifying the identity of signatories, ensuring their presence during the notarization, and maintaining the integrity of legal documents.

What happens if a notary public fails to follow the Notarial Rules?

Failure to adhere to the Notarial Rules can result in disciplinary actions, including suspension from legal practice and prohibition from serving as a notary public.

Can a notary public be held liable for forgery?

Yes, a notary public can be held liable for the misuse of their seal, even if they claim the signature was forged, if they fail to exercise due diligence in safeguarding their notarial materials.

How can property owners protect themselves in transactions?

Property owners should ensure that they work with reputable notaries and verify the authenticity of all notarized documents involved in their transactions.

What should I do if I suspect a notarized document is fraudulent?

If you suspect fraud, consult a legal professional immediately to investigate the document’s validity and take appropriate legal action.

ASG Law specializes in Notarial Law and Property Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.