Tag: Personal Appearance

Upholding Notarial Integrity: Consequences for False Attestation

In Atty. Rogelio N. Velarde v. Atty. Ruben M. Ilagan, the Supreme Court addressed the serious misconduct of a lawyer notarizing deeds of sale after the death of one of the vendors. The Court emphasized that notarization is far from a mere formality; it transforms private documents into public ones, carrying a presumption of authenticity and due execution. This decision underscores the critical importance of personal appearance before a notary public to prevent fraud and uphold the integrity of legal documents. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to notaries public to diligently fulfill their duties and protect the public’s confidence in notarized documents; failure to do so can result in severe penalties, including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from holding a notarial commission.

Deeds From the Grave: Can a Notary Attest for the Deceased?

This case arose from a complaint filed by Atty. Rogelio N. Velarde against Atty. Ruben M. Ilagan, accusing the latter of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The heart of the issue was Atty. Ilagan’s notarization of several Deeds of Absolute Sale, purportedly signed by Narciso Salas. However, Narciso Salas had already passed away at the time these documents were notarized. Atty. Velarde, a co-owner of the land subject of the deeds, asserted that Atty. Ilagan falsely attested to Narciso’s personal appearance, thereby depriving him and other co-owners of their rights. This situation brings to the forefront the crucial role and responsibilities of a notary public, and the grave consequences when these duties are neglected or violated.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, highlighted the significant nature of notarization. It is not simply a ministerial act, but one that carries legal weight, converting a private document into a public one. As such, notarized documents are admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. The Court emphasized that this transformation requires strict adherence to the rules, specifically Rule IV, Section 1(b) and (c) of the Notarial Rules, which mandate the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary. The personal appearance ensures that the signatory is known to the notary or properly identified and that the document is executed voluntarily and with full understanding.

(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.

In this case, Atty. Ilagan’s actions directly contravened these rules. By notarizing deeds purportedly signed by a deceased individual, he failed to ensure the genuineness of the signature and the due execution of the document. This failure undermines the very purpose of notarization: to protect against fraud and ensure the integrity of legal instruments. The Court cited the case of Dela Cruz-Silano v. Pangan, where it stressed the indispensable character of personal appearance in preventing fraudulent activities. The absence of personal appearance creates an opportunity for spurious documents to be authenticated, and for individuals to misrepresent themselves.

The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. 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, x x x

Atty. Ilagan’s misconduct extended beyond the violation of notarial rules. The Supreme Court found him guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Specifically, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, failing to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the law. Furthermore, his repeated failure to attend the mandatory conference hearings ordered by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) demonstrated a disregard for the authority of the IBP, which is a conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Canon 11 of the CPR requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, a standard that Atty. Ilagan failed to meet.

The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended that Atty. Ilagan be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that his notarial commission be revoked, and that he be disqualified from being a notary public for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation in toto. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings and conclusions. The Court emphasized that notaries public are duty-bound to preserve the integrity of notarized documents and actively work to increase public confidence in them. Any act that diminishes the imagery of these documents as imbued with public interest will be met with appropriate punishment.

The Court also considered Atty. Ilagan’s defiance of the IBP’s orders as an aggravating factor. His repeated failure to attend the mandatory conference hearings indicated a lack of respect for the legal profession’s regulatory body. The Court referenced the case of Heenan v. Atty. Espejo, which underscores the importance of lawyers heeding the orders of the IBP. This defiance, coupled with the breach of notarial rules, warranted a more severe penalty. By disregarding the IBP’s directives, Atty. Ilagan showed a lack of professionalism and a disregard for the ethical standards expected of members of the bar.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court considered precedents involving similar misconduct. In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real, a lawyer who notarized a document without requiring the affiant’s personal appearance had his notarial commission revoked, was disqualified from reappointment as notary public for two years, and was suspended from the practice of law for one year. Considering the gravity of Atty. Ilagan’s actions and his defiance of the IBP, the Court deemed the penalty of a two-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years to be just and proper. The Court sends a clear message that such breaches of duty will not be tolerated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Ilagan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents purportedly signed by a deceased person. This raised questions about the importance of personal appearance in notarization and the duties of a notary public.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. This process requires strict adherence to rules, including the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary, to prevent fraud and ensure integrity.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance ensures that the signatory is known to the notary or properly identified, and that the document is executed voluntarily and with full understanding. It helps prevent fraudulent activities and ensures the document’s authenticity.
What rules did Atty. Ilagan violate?	Atty. Ilagan violated Rule IV, Section 1(b) and (c) of the Notarial Rules, which require personal appearance, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. He also disregarded the authority of the IBP by failing to attend mandatory conference hearings.
What was the IBP’s role in this case?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint against Atty. Ilagan, conducted mandatory conference hearings, and recommended penalties. The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Ilagan guilty of misconduct, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted their recommendation.
What penalties were imposed on Atty. Ilagan?	Atty. Ilagan was suspended from the practice of law for two years, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a Notary Public for a period of two years. He was also sternly warned against committing similar infractions in the future.
Can a notary public notarize a document without the signatory’s personal appearance?	No, the rules require the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public at the time of notarization. Notarizing a document without personal appearance is a serious violation that can lead to disciplinary action.
What does the Code of Professional Responsibility say about a lawyer’s conduct?	The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Lawyers must also maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers and should avoid engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

This case underscores the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, especially those commissioned as notaries public. It reinforces the principle that notarization is a crucial act that demands the highest standards of integrity and diligence. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a warning to all notaries public to strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing notarial practice, ensuring that they uphold the integrity of legal documents and protect the public from fraud.

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: Atty. Rogelio N. Velarde v. Atty. Ruben M. Ilagan, G.R. No. 65764, September 17, 2019

September 17, 2019

Upholding Integrity: Notarial Duty Requires Personal Appearance and Accurate Record-Keeping

The Supreme Court held that a notary public violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories and by failing to properly record the notarial act in the notarial register. This decision underscores the critical importance of a notary public’s role in verifying the identities of signatories and ensuring the authenticity of documents. The ruling impacts how notarial services are conducted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements to maintain public trust in notarized documents.

Remote Notarization vs. Personal Presence: When is a Video Call Enough?

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Azucena C. Tabao against Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba, alleging violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The heart of the complaint stemmed from Atty. Lacaba’s notarization of a counter-affidavit where two affiants, Marlin and Marie Cinco, did not personally appear before him. Instead, their signatures were affixed by their respective mothers, Rosalina Aloha B. Cinco and Felicita P. Cinco. The complainant argued that Atty. Lacaba failed to comply with the requirements of personal appearance and proper recording in his notarial register.

Atty. Lacaba did not deny the complainant’s allegations; however, he contended that he had contacted Marlin and Marie via video call and that they authorized their mothers to sign on their behalf. He argued that the video call served as a substitute for personal presence, citing the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Further, he claimed that the circumstances fell under the “physical inability” provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice. However, he admitted that not all elements required by the said provision were present in this case. He maintained that he acted in good faith, believing that the video call sufficiently addressed the requirement of personal appearance, and informed the Investigating Prosecutor that two of the affiants were physically absent but could be contacted via telephone and video call via internet.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Lacaba guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP emphasized that Atty. Lacaba never denied notarizing the counter-affidavit despite the absence of two affiants. Furthermore, the IBP noted that Rosalina and Felicitas were not appointed representatives of Marlin and Marie in accordance with the Civil Code. It recommended a suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the IBP, emphasizing the importance of personal appearance in notarial acts. The Court cited Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. The Court underscored that the purpose of personal appearance is to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

The Court also addressed Atty. Lacaba’s failure to indicate the document number, page number, book number, and the corresponding series year of his notarial register, deeming this a clear violation of Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court reiterated that these formalities are mandatory, given the evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. The Court explained that notarization transforms a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. Thus, a notary public must observe the basic requirements in performing notarial duties.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the stringent requirements for notarial acts, reinforcing the principle that personal appearance is crucial for verifying the authenticity and voluntariness of documents. The Court rejected the argument that a video call could substitute for personal appearance, citing the need for notaries to directly assess the affiant’s identity and willingness to execute the document.

The Court explicitly quoted the Rules on Notarial Practice to underscore the mandatory nature of personal appearance and proper documentation:

Rule IV

x x x x

Sec. 2. Prohibitions. – x x x

x x x x

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.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the significance of maintaining a detailed and accurate notarial register, as mandated by Rule VI:

Rule VI

x x x x

Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – x x x

x x x x

e.

The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.

The Court held that Atty. Lacaba’s actions undermined the public’s confidence in notarized documents. The Court further stated that notaries public cannot bend the rules for their benefit and that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and revocation of his notarial commission (if any) were commensurate and in accord with existing jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Lacaba violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a counter-affidavit without the personal appearance of all affiants and by failing to properly record the notarial act.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature, ascertain the document is the party’s free act and deed, and ensure the affiant fully understands the content of the document they are signing.
Can a video call substitute for personal appearance in a notarial act?	No, according to this ruling, a video call does not satisfy the requirement of personal appearance. The notary must be physically present with the signatory to properly verify their identity and ensure their willingness to execute the document.
What are the consequences of violating notarial rules?	Violating notarial rules can lead to administrative sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
What information must be included in a notarial register?	The notary public must record each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, assigning a corresponding number and stating the page(s) of the register on which the document is recorded.
Can someone sign a document on behalf of another person during notarization?	Generally, no. Each affiant must personally appear and sign the document themselves unless specific conditions outlined in the Rules on Notarial Practice for physical inability are met, which require specific procedures and witnesses.
What is the role of the IBP in administrative cases against lawyers?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigates complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding disciplinary actions.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, giving it full faith and credit on its face.

This case reaffirms the stringent standards required of notaries public in the Philippines. By requiring personal appearance and accurate record-keeping, the Supreme Court seeks to uphold the integrity of notarized documents and maintain public trust in the notarial process.

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: AZUCENA C. TABAO VS. ATTY. ALEXANDER R. LACABA, G.R. No. 65026, March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

Notarial Law: Personal Appearance Requirement and Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court held that a notary public’s failure to require the personal appearance of individuals signing a document constitutes a violation of notarial law, warranting disciplinary action. This ruling emphasizes the crucial role of notaries public in ensuring the authenticity and due execution of legal documents, thereby safeguarding the integrity of public instruments. The decision serves as a stern reminder to notaries public to strictly adhere to the requirements of personal appearance to maintain public trust and confidence in the notarization process, preventing potential fraud and misrepresentation.

The Absent Signatures: When Does Notarization Fail the Personal Appearance Test?

This case revolves around spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita filing an administrative complaint against Atty. Allan Latras for violating notarial law. The spouses alleged that Atty. Latras notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale without their personal appearance, and that Atty. Latras was also legal counsel for the other party involved, Ester Servacio. The central legal question is whether a notary public can be held liable for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatories, even if they claim to have relied on assurances that the parties would later appear.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice are explicit on the requirements for notarization. Section 1 of Rule II dictates that an acknowledgment requires the individual to appear in person before the notary public and present a complete document. The notary must either personally know the individual or verify their identity through competent evidence. Further, the individual must represent that their signature was voluntarily affixed for the stated purposes. These requirements ensure the integrity and authenticity of notarized documents.

Section 2(b) of Rule IV reinforces this by prohibiting a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. This rule also applies if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence. These provisions underscore the importance of personal appearance in the notarization process. The rules aim to prevent fraud and ensure that the document is executed with the full knowledge and consent of the parties involved.

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. – “Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

In this case, it was undisputed that Atty. Latras notarized the subject document without the spouses’ personal appearance. His defense was that he acted upon the instruction of Ray Zialcita and relied on the assurance that the spouses would appear later. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that substantial compliance with notarial law is insufficient when the requirement of personal appearance is not met. The Court has repeatedly stressed that personal appearance is crucial to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature.

The Supreme Court cited Agagon v. Bustamante, emphasizing that notarization is not a mere formality. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity. The court stated:

It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

Given these considerations, the Court found Atty. Latras administratively liable for notarizing the document without the required personal appearance. He could not evade responsibility by claiming that he was merely following instructions. While the complainants alleged conspiracy between Atty. Latras and Servacio to substitute the first page of the deed, they failed to provide clear and preponderant evidence to support this claim. The required quantum of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers necessitates that the evidence is clear and convincing.

The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Bañares, imposed a penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for six months for a similar violation. Furthermore, in Orola v. Baribar, the Court deemed it proper to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of the incumbent commission as a notary public, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years.

Reflecting these established principles, the Court held Atty. Latras administratively liable. The penalty imposed was suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of his notarial commission (if currently commissioned), and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the notarial process and upholding the public’s trust in legal documents.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a notary public violated notarial law by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatories. This raised questions about the strict adherence to procedural requirements and the consequences of non-compliance.
What is the personal appearance requirement in notarial law?	The personal appearance requirement mandates that individuals signing a document must physically appear before the notary public at the time of notarization. This allows the notary to verify the identity and genuineness of the signatory’s signature.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance is crucial because it enables the notary public to ensure that the document is executed with the full knowledge and consent of the parties involved. It also helps prevent fraud and misrepresentation by verifying the identity of the signatories.
What are the consequences for a notary public who fails to comply with the personal appearance requirement?	A notary public who fails to comply with the personal appearance requirement may face administrative sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of their notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public in the future.
Can a notary public rely on assurances that the signatories will appear later?	No, a notary public cannot rely on assurances that the signatories will appear later. The law requires that the signatories be personally present at the time of notarization to ensure the validity and integrity of the document.
What evidence is required to prove a violation of notarial law?	In administrative complaints for violations of notarial law, the required quantum of proof is clear and preponderant evidence. This means that the evidence presented must be clear, convincing, and sufficient to establish the violation.
What is the purpose of notarization?	Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without the need for preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. It also assures the public that the document was executed with the full knowledge and consent of the parties involved.
What should individuals do if they suspect a notary public has violated notarial law?	Individuals who suspect a notary public has violated notarial law can file an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). They should provide as much evidence as possible to support their claim.

This case underscores the importance of strict compliance with notarial law and the consequences of failing to adhere to its requirements. Notaries public play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of legal documents, and their failure to uphold these standards can have serious repercussions. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for diligence and adherence to the rules to maintain public trust in the notarization process.

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: SPOUSES RAY AND MARCELINA ZIALCITA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ALLAN LATRAS, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 7169, March 11, 2019

March 11, 2019

Upholding Integrity: Notarial Duties and the Consequences of Negligence

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of a notary public’s duty to ensure the authenticity of documents by requiring personal appearance of signatories. In Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. v. Atty. Archie S. Baribar, the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for notarizing a document without the signatory being personally present. This case underscores the gravity of failing to uphold the standards of notarial practice, which are essential for maintaining public trust in legal documents. The ruling emphasizes that lawyers commissioned as notaries public must discharge their duties with fidelity, as dictated by public policy and public interest.

The Absent Signatory: When a Notary’s Oversight Leads to Suspension

The case revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Archie S. Baribar for various violations, including notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the signatories, Docufredo Claveria. The complainants, Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc., alleged that Atty. Baribar had filed a baseless labor case against them and notarized a Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005, without Claveria’s presence, as Claveria was overseas at the time. Atty. Baribar admitted that Claveria was not present but argued that he knew Claveria personally and was familiar with his signature. This admission formed the crux of the case, highlighting a critical breach of notarial duty.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Baribar liable for failing to ensure Claveria’s personal appearance during the notarization. The IBP’s report emphasized that a notary public must not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the recommendation, suspending Atty. Baribar from the practice of law for one year and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s assessment, underscoring the significance of adherence to notarial rules.

At the heart of this case lies the fundamental principle that notarization is not a mere formality but a crucial act imbued with public interest. As the Supreme Court stated:

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization.

This highlights that notarization serves to ensure the authenticity and reliability of documents, converting private documents into public ones that are admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. The personal appearance requirement is in place to allow the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and ascertain that the document is their own free act and deed. By neglecting to ensure Claveria’s presence, Atty. Baribar undermined the integrity of the notarization process.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandate the personal appearance of the affiant before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1, states that acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

Further emphasizing this requirement, Rule IV, Section 2(b), prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. These rules leave no room for deviation and place a stringent duty on notaries public to ensure compliance.

This responsibility is particularly pronounced for lawyers commissioned as notaries public. The Court stressed that lawyers must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act that might lessen public trust. By violating the Notarial Rules, Atty. Baribar not only failed in his duty as a notary public but also compromised his professional obligations as a lawyer. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a lawyer’s duty as a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. The penalties for failing to discharge these duties range from revocation of notarial commission to suspension from the practice of law, depending on the circumstances of each case.

Several similar cases highlight the consequences of neglecting notarial duties. In Villarin v. Atty. Sabate, Jr., the Court suspended a notary public for one year for notarizing a Verification when some of the affiants were not present. Similarly, in Coquia v. Atty. Laforteza, the Court revoked a notarial commission for notarizing a pre-signed document and failing to verify the identity of all parties. These cases underscore the consistent stance of the Supreme Court in upholding the sanctity of notarial practice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Orola v. Baribar serves as a stark reminder to all notaries public, particularly lawyers, of the critical importance of adhering to the rules governing notarial practice. The personal appearance requirement is not a mere technicality but a fundamental safeguard to ensure the authenticity and reliability of legal documents. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to severe consequences, including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission. This case reinforces the principle that notarial duties are impressed with public interest and that lawyers commissioned as notaries public must discharge these duties with utmost fidelity and diligence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Baribar violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without ensuring the personal appearance of one of the signatories.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Baribar guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance ensures the authenticity of the document and allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature. It also confirms that the document is the signatory’s free act and deed.
What are the duties of a notary public?	A notary public must ensure that signatories appear personally before them, verify their identity, and confirm that they have voluntarily signed the document. They must also comply with all requirements under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
What is the legal basis for requiring personal appearance?	Rule II, Section 1, and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly require the personal appearance of the affiant before the notary public at the time of notarization.
What penalties can a notary public face for violating notarial rules?	Penalties can include revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, the terms of which vary based on the circumstances.
How does this case affect lawyers who are notaries public?	This case reinforces that lawyers commissioned as notaries public have a heightened responsibility to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and comply with notarial rules. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action.
Can a notary public rely on familiarity with a person’s signature instead of requiring personal appearance?	No, the Rules on Notarial Practice require personal appearance regardless of whether the notary public is familiar with the person or their signature.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical and legal responsibilities of notaries public in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of upholding the integrity of the notarial process to maintain public trust in legal documents.

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: Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. v. Atty. Archie S. Baribar, A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Upholding Notarial Duties: Consequences for Neglecting Personal Appearance Requirements

In Romeo A. Almario v. Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno, the Supreme Court addressed the responsibilities of a notary public in ensuring the personal appearance of individuals signing documents. The Court found Atty. Agno culpable for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal presence of one of the affiants, Francisca A. Mallari. This decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and reinforces the principle that notaries public must verify the identities and voluntary participation of all signatories to maintain the integrity of legal documents. The Court suspended Atty. Agno as a notary public for two months, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with notarial duties while considering mitigating circumstances.

When a Notary’s Oversight Undermines Document Integrity: The Almario v. Agno Case

The case of Romeo A. Almario v. Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno began with a complaint filed by Romeo Almario against Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without ensuring the personal appearance of one of the affiants, Francisca A. Mallari. Almario alleged that this SPA was falsified, as Mallari was in Japan when the document was supposedly executed in the Philippines. He contended that Atty. Agno’s actions violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and maintain candor with the court. This case thus brings to the forefront the issue of a notary public’s duty to verify the identity and presence of individuals signing legal documents.

Atty. Agno, in her defense, claimed that the SPA was sent to Mallari in Japan and later returned to the Philippines by Mallari’s son. She admitted to notarizing the document for expediency, as the defendants in the related civil case were pressed for time. Despite Mallari later acknowledging the SPA before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo, the core issue remained: whether Atty. Agno’s initial notarization without Mallari’s presence constituted a breach of her professional and notarial duties. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Agno liable, recommending a six-month suspension as a notary public, a recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Agno appealed, seeking a reduction in the penalty, citing her long service and the eventual compromise agreement in the civil case.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of personal appearance in notarization, citing Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that an individual must appear in person before the notary public. The Court also cited Section 2(b), Rule IV, clarifying that a notary public must not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. These provisions underscore the notary public’s crucial role in verifying the genuineness of signatures and ensuring the document’s due execution. The Court quoted Ferguson v. Atty. Ramos, highlighting that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act[; i]t is imbued with public interest x x x.”

Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that notaries public are prohibited from notarizing fictitious documents and are expected to uphold the integrity of notarial acts. In this case, the SPA was notarized despite Mallari’s absence, confirmed by the Bureau of Immigration’s records showing she was in Japan at the time. The Court acknowledged Atty. Agno’s duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for legal processes. However, considering the circumstances, the Court opted to reduce the recommended penalty. The Court decided to suspend Atty. Agno as a notary public for two months, taking into account the absence of bad faith, the compromise agreement in the civil case, and her long, previously unblemished record as a notary public since 1973. Additionally, the Court considered her advanced age, further supporting the decision to reduce the penalty.

This decision serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for notarial practice and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to those requirements. While mitigating circumstances can influence the severity of the penalty, the core principle remains: notaries public must ensure the personal appearance of signatories to uphold the integrity and reliability of notarized documents. The ruling in Almario v. Agno reinforces the vital role of notaries public in the legal system and the importance of their adherence to established rules and ethical standards. This case highlights the need for notaries to exercise due diligence in verifying the identities and presence of individuals signing documents, reinforcing public trust in the notarial process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Agno violated her duties as a notary public by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the affiants.
What are the requirements for notarization according to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?	The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that the individual appears in person before the notary public, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence, and represents that the signature was voluntarily affixed.
What was Atty. Agno’s defense?	Atty. Agno argued that the SPA was sent to Mallari in Japan and later returned, and she notarized it for expediency. She also highlighted that Mallari later acknowledged the SPA before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo.
What penalty did the IBP recommend?	The IBP recommended that Atty. Agno be suspended for six months as a notary public.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Agno as a notary public for two months, a reduced penalty from the IBP’s recommendation.
What factors did the Supreme Court consider in reducing the penalty?	The Court considered the apparent absence of bad faith, the eventual compromise agreement in the civil case, her long and previously unblemished record, and her advanced age.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and ensure that the document is the party’s free and voluntary act.
What is the duty of a notary public?	A notary public has a duty to obey the laws of the land, promote respect for legal processes, and ensure the integrity of notarized documents.
What canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility were allegedly violated?	The complainant alleged violations of Canons 1 and 10, which require lawyers to uphold the law and maintain candor with the court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Almario v. Agno serves as a crucial reminder to all notaries public of their responsibilities in ensuring the integrity of notarized documents. By emphasizing the importance of personal appearance and adherence to the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Court reinforces the vital role of notaries in the legal system. The message is clear: strict compliance with notarial duties is essential to maintaining public trust and upholding the rule of law.

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: ROMEO A. ALMARIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DOMINICA LLERA-AGNO, RESPONDENT., G.R No. 63783, January 08, 2018

January 8, 2018

Negligence in Notarization: Upholding Public Trust in Legal Documents

In Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani v. Atty. Renato G. Gasmen, the Supreme Court held Atty. Gasmen liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance. This ruling underscores the critical duty of notaries public to verify the identity of signatories and ensure the integrity of notarized documents. It serves as a stern reminder that failure to perform these duties undermines public trust and the legal system.

A Notary’s Breach: When a Signature Leads to Suspension

This case stems from a complaint filed by Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani against Atty. Renato G. Gasmen, a notary public. Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a loan application bearing Sappayani’s forged signature. These documents allowed a third party to obtain a loan on Sappayani’s behalf without his knowledge or consent, raising a crucial question: What is the extent of a notary public’s responsibility in verifying the identity of individuals signing documents?

The controversy unfolded when Sappayani discovered the fraudulent loan taken out in his name. The SPA, purportedly signed by him and notarized by Atty. Gasmen, authorized Newtrade Goodwill Corporation (NGC) to secure a loan from Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI). Sappayani vehemently denied signing the SPA or knowing the individual who represented NGC. Crucially, he stated that he could not have been present at the notarization as he was undergoing training in General Santos City at the time.

In his defense, Atty. Gasmen claimed that the notarization was a mere ministerial act, done after the loan proceeds had already been released. He also asserted that Sappayani’s signature had been compared to specimen cards held by AMWSLAI. However, this defense did not hold water, because notarization requires diligence and cannot be treated as a mere formality, especially considering the legal weight attached to notarized documents.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP highlighted that Atty. Gasmen failed to exercise the reasonable diligence expected of a notary public, particularly by not ensuring Sappayani’s personal appearance. This failure led to the notarization of a forged SPA, resulting in significant harm to Sappayani.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the importance of personal appearance before a notary public. The Court referenced Act No. 2103, which stipulates that the notary public must certify that the person acknowledging the document is known to him and that the person is the same individual who executed it. This requirement ensures that the document is indeed the free act and deed of the person involved.

Moreover, the Court cited Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, which explicitly prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or properly identified. This rule reinforces the necessity of personal appearance and proper identification to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of notarized documents.

The Court firmly rejected Atty. Gasmen’s argument that notarization was a mere ministerial act.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization.

This statement underscores that notarization carries significant legal weight and cannot be treated lightly.

Atty. Gasmen’s actions also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which states:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

By notarizing the forged SPA, Atty. Gasmen engaged in conduct that eroded public trust in the legal profession. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the penalties recommended by the IBP, underscoring the seriousness of the offense.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court considered that Atty. Gasmen did not deny notarizing documents without the presence of the affiant. This implied an admission of a practice that facilitated fraud. Therefore, the Court imposed the following penalties: suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his incumbent commission as a notary public, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court warned that any repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

This case serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the duties and responsibilities of notaries public in the Philippines. It emphasizes the importance of verifying the identity of signatories and ensuring their personal appearance before notarizing documents. The ruling safeguards the integrity of notarized documents, which are relied upon for various legal and commercial transactions.

The implications of this decision extend beyond notaries public. It reminds all legal professionals of their ethical obligations to uphold the integrity of the legal system. It also highlights the need for individuals to be vigilant in protecting their personal information and preventing identity theft. By enforcing these standards, the Supreme Court aims to maintain public trust in the legal profession and the notarization process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Gasmen violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance.
What did Sappayani allege against Atty. Gasmen?	Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a loan application bearing his forged signature, allowing a third party to obtain a loan without his consent.
What was Atty. Gasmen’s defense?	Atty. Gasmen claimed that the notarization was a mere ministerial act after the loan proceeds had been released and that Sappayani’s signature had been compared to specimen cards.
What did the IBP find?	The IBP found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to exercise reasonable diligence.
What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Gasmen?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Gasmen from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance is crucial to verify the identity of the signatory and ensure that the document is their free act and deed, preventing fraud and maintaining the integrity of notarized documents.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the duties of notaries public to verify identities, upholds the integrity of notarized documents, and reminds legal professionals of their ethical obligations.
What should individuals do to protect themselves from similar fraud?	Individuals should be vigilant in protecting their personal information, monitoring their financial accounts, and promptly reporting any unauthorized transactions or suspicious activities.

In conclusion, the Sappayani v. Gasmen case underscores the vital role of notaries public in safeguarding the integrity of legal documents. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to all legal professionals of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding public trust in the legal system.

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: FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 7073, September 01, 2015

September 1, 2015

Upholding Integrity: Consequences for Notarizing Documents Without Personal Appearance

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anudon v. Cefra underscores the critical importance of a notary public’s duty to ensure the personal appearance of all parties involved in a notarized document. By notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the presence of all vendors, Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated both the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality, but a crucial act that lends authenticity and reliability to legal documents, and that requires the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the voluntary execution of the document.

The Absent Affiants: When a Notary’s Duty is Breached

This case revolves around a Deed of Absolute Sale that was notarized by Atty. Arturo B. Cefra. Jimmy and Juanita Anudon, co-owners of the land in question, alleged that their signatures on the deed were forged and that they never appeared before Atty. Cefra to sign the document. Further complicating matters, they contended that some of their co-owners were abroad or in a different province on the day the deed was supposedly executed, making their presence impossible. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) confirmed the forgery of Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures, casting serious doubt on the validity of the notarization.

Atty. Cefra defended his actions by claiming that he acted in good faith, believing that the complainants were aware of and consented to the sale. He stated that representatives of the buyer had brought the deed to the vendors for signing and later informed him that they had witnessed the signing. However, the Supreme Court found this explanation unacceptable, emphasizing that a notary public cannot simply rely on the representations of others but must personally verify the identities and voluntary participation of all signatories. The notary’s role is to ensure that the parties executing the document are indeed the persons they claim to be and that they freely and voluntarily sign the document.

The legal framework underpinning this decision rests on the Notarial Law, specifically Act No. 2103 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. These laws and rules explicitly require the personal appearance of the affiants before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice states:

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.—“Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of this requirement. In Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials, the Court stated, “[i]t is obvious that the party acknowledging must . . . appear before the notary public[.]”

Building on this principle, the Court further explained the rationale behind the requirement of personal appearance in Spouses Domingo v. Reed:

[A] document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.

This requirement ensures that the document reflects the true intentions of the parties and safeguards against fraud, coercion, and other irregularities. By failing to ensure the personal appearance of all vendors, Atty. Cefra not only violated the Notarial Law but also undermined the integrity of the notarization process and facilitated the potential for forgery and misrepresentation.

Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted Atty. Cefra’s violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that “[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” His repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders to comment on the administrative complaint demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal system and a willful disregard for his duties as an officer of the court. The Court deemed this contumacious behavior deserving of severe disciplinary action.

Atty. Cefra’s actions also violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to “observe and maintain the respect due to the courts[.]” His willful disobedience of the Court’s directive, without any reasonable explanation, warranted a penalty. The Supreme Court emphasized that such behavior not only reflects poorly on the individual lawyer but also undermines the public’s confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice.

In light of these violations, the Supreme Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of his incumbent notarial commission (if any), and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court also issued a stern warning that any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility would result in more severe penalties. This decision serves as a clear message to all notaries public that they must take their duties seriously and adhere strictly to the requirements of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The penalties were determined by considering similar cases. The Supreme Court considered cases such as Isenhardt v. Atty. Real, Linco v. Atty. Lacebal, Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon, and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, where notaries were found guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties and were penalized with disqualification as notaries and suspension from the practice of law. The court also considered the case of De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, where the respondent-lawyer was suspended from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being a notary public for notarizing documents without the signatures of the parties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without ensuring the personal appearance of all the vendors.
What did the NBI investigation reveal?	The NBI investigation confirmed that the signatures of Jimmy and Juanita Anudon on the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged.
What did Atty. Cefra claim in his defense?	Atty. Cefra claimed he acted in good faith, believing the vendors consented to the sale, and relied on the buyer’s representatives who said the vendors had signed the document.
What does the Notarial Law say about personal appearance?	The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly require the personal appearance of all affiants before the notary public to ensure proper identification and voluntary execution of the document.
What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Cefra violate?	Atty. Cefra violated Canon 1, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Canon 11, which requires lawyers to respect the courts.
What penalties were imposed on Atty. Cefra?	Atty. Cefra was suspended from the practice of law for two years, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance ensures that the document reflects the true intentions of the parties, safeguards against fraud and coercion, and allows the notary to verify the identity and voluntary participation of the signatories.
What message does this decision send to notaries public?	This decision emphasizes that notaries public must take their duties seriously, adhere strictly to the requirements of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and personally verify the identities and voluntary participation of all signatories.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anudon v. Cefra serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities entrusted to notaries public. By strictly enforcing the requirement of personal appearance and imposing severe penalties for non-compliance, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of integrity and diligence in the notarization process.

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: JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015

February 10, 2015

Upholding Notarial Duty: Personal Appearance and Accountability in Document Attestation

The Supreme Court held that a notary public who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of all affiants violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama was found guilty of misconduct for notarizing a ‘Deed of Donation’ where one of the affiants, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson, was not physically present, as evidenced by immigration records. This decision underscores the importance of verifying the identity and presence of individuals signing documents and reinforces the responsibilities of notaries public in ensuring the integrity and authenticity of notarized documents, thereby safeguarding public trust and confidence in the notarial process.

The Case of the Absent Affiant: Can a Notary Public Certify What Isn’t There?

Emerita B. Mahilum filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama for notarizing a Deed of Donation involving her estranged husband, Rodolfo Mahilum, and their daughter, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. The core issue was whether Atty. Lezama violated his duties as a notary public by attesting to the personal appearance of Jennifer when she was, in fact, abroad. The complainant presented evidence that Jennifer was in the United States on the date the document was notarized, challenging the validity and integrity of the notarization process.

The case unfolded with the complainant, Emerita B. Mahilum, alleging that Atty. Lezama notarized the Deed of Donation on May 24, 2006, falsely attesting to the presence of both Rodolfo and Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. Atty. Lezama countered that all parties were present during the signing, asserting he knew Rodolfo personally and had no reason to doubt his representation that Jennifer had traveled from the USA. However, the Bureau of Immigration certification revealed that Jennifer did not enter the Philippines in 2006, undermining Atty. Lezama’s claim.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter, finding that Atty. Lezama failed to exercise due diligence in verifying Jennifer’s identity. The IBP recommended the revocation of Atty. Lezama’s notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, leading Atty. Lezama to seek reconsideration, arguing that the complainant was not his client and that the notarization caused no damage.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the critical role of a notary public in ensuring the personal appearance of affiants. The Court cited Public Act No. 2103, also known as the Notarial Law, which explicitly requires the affiant to appear before the notary public, thus:

Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

Building on this statutory requirement, the Court also referenced Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, which mandates that a notary public must not perform a notarial act unless the affiant is physically present and personally known or identified through competent evidence.

The Court underscored the significance of these rules by quoting Angeles v. Ibañez, stating:

The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties’ free act and deed.

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.

The Supreme Court differentiated between mere carelessness and deliberate disregard of the rules. Carelessness might imply forgetting to verify the identity of a present affiant, whereas Atty. Lezama knowingly attested to the presence of someone who was not there. The Court concluded that Atty. Lezama’s actions constituted a deliberate violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The implications of this misconduct are significant. A notarized document carries a presumption of due execution, and the notary’s signature and seal mislead the public into believing that all affiants personally appeared and attested to the truthfulness of the document’s contents. This misrepresentation can lead to precarious legal consequences should the document later be subject to judicial scrutiny. As the Court emphasized, a notary public must ensure that the persons signing the document are the same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him. This is crucial for verifying the genuineness of the signatures and ensuring the affiant’s free consent.

The Court referenced Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Atty. Lezama’s actions were found to be in direct violation of this rule and the Notarial Law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His incumbent notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective immediately. The Court also issued a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Lezama violated his duties as a notary public by attesting to the personal appearance of Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson when she was not physically present during the notarization of a Deed of Donation. This raised questions about the integrity and validity of the notarization process.
What evidence was presented to show Jennifer’s absence?	The complainant presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration showing that Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson did not enter the Philippines in 2006, the year the Deed of Donation was notarized. This travel record contradicted Atty. Lezama’s claim that Jennifer was present.
What did the IBP recommend?	The IBP recommended the revocation of Atty. Lezama’s notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a Notary Public. This recommendation was based on his failure to exercise due diligence in verifying Jennifer’s identity.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Lezama guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Why is the personal appearance of affiants important in notarization?	The personal appearance of affiants allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure the document is the free act and deed of the parties involved. This process transforms a private document into a public one, which can be relied upon in court.
What specific laws did Atty. Lezama violate?	Atty. Lezama violated Public Act No. 2103 (the Notarial Law), Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These laws and rules emphasize the necessity of personal appearance and prohibit deceitful conduct.
What is the difference between carelessness and deliberate disregard in this context?	Carelessness would imply that the affiant was actually present, but the notary public simply forgot to verify their identity. Deliberate disregard, as found in this case, means the affiant was not present, yet the notary public attested to their presence.
What potential consequences arise from improper notarization?	Improper notarization can mislead the public into believing that a document has been duly executed, potentially leading to legal complications and undermining the integrity of legal processes. It also erodes public trust in notarial acts.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities and duties of notaries public in ensuring the integrity of legal documents. The ruling reinforces the need for strict adherence to the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the importance of verifying the identity and presence of individuals signing documents, thereby safeguarding public trust and confidence in the notarial process.

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: EMERITA B. MAHILUM VS. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, A.C. No. 10450, July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

Upholding Integrity: Notarial Duty and Consequences of Falsification

The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the crucial role of a notary public in ensuring the authenticity of documents. The Court ruled that a lawyer who notarizes a document without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to notarial requirements to maintain public trust in legal documents, highlighting the severe consequences for lawyers who fail to uphold their duties.

Compromised Oath: When a Notary’s Negligence Enables Fraud

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against Atty. Roseller A. Viray for allegedly violating the Notarial Law. The core issue is whether Atty. Viray was negligent in notarizing an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, which Mrs. Agbulos denied executing. The document played a role in the alleged illegal transfer of property registered under Mrs. Agbulos’ name to Rolando Dollente, Atty. Viray’s client.

Atty. Viray admitted to preparing and notarizing the affidavit at Dollente’s request. He claimed Dollente assured him the document was signed by Mrs. Agbulos and that the community tax certificate (CTC) presented belonged to her. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Atty. Viray liable, leading to a recommendation for suspension. The IBP noted that Atty. Viray notarized the document without the affiant’s personal appearance, relying solely on Dollente’s assurances.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of personal appearance before a notary public. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that a notary public cannot perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Competent evidence of identity is defined in Section 12, Rule II, as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature.

x x x x

(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.

Atty. Viray failed to adhere to these requirements. He notarized the affidavit without Mrs. Agbulos’ personal appearance, relying solely on Dollente’s word. The Court underscored the need for a notary public to verify the genuineness of the affiant’s signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act or deed. By failing to observe these rules, Atty. Viray did not ascertain the genuineness of the signature, which later proved to be a forgery.

The Court cited Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, emphasizing the dangers of notarizing documents without the affiant’s physical presence.

The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. 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 reiterated the significance of notarization, stating that it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public must observe the basic requirements carefully to maintain public confidence in notarized documents.

Atty. Viray’s negligence undermined the integrity of the notarial function. The Court stressed that the responsibility to observe the solemnity of an oath is more pronounced for lawyer-notaries due to their oath to obey the laws and avoid falsehood. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public must discharge their duties with fidelity, as dictated by public policy and interest. Given these failures, the Court increased the penalty recommended by the IBP.

The Court found Atty. Viray guilty of breaching the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately. The Court warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Viray violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification.
What is the importance of personal appearance before a notary public?	Personal appearance allows the notary to verify the genuineness of the affiant’s signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act or deed, preventing fraud and misrepresentation.
What constitutes competent evidence of identity?	Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature.
What is the role of a notary public?	A notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, thus requiring utmost care in performing their duties.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Viray?	Atty. Viray was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Why was the penalty increased from the IBP’s recommendation?	The penalty was increased because Atty. Viray not only prepared the document but also performed the notarial act without the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification, facilitating fraud.
What rule was violated regarding Notarial Practice?	He violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the affiant’s personal presence and proper identification during notarization.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to notarial requirements to maintain public trust in legal documents and highlights the severe consequences for lawyers who fail to uphold their duties.
What is the effect of notarization on a document?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity.

This decision serves as a strong reminder to all lawyers commissioned as notaries public to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The integrity of the notarial process is paramount, and any deviation can result in severe penalties, affecting both the lawyer’s professional standing and the public’s trust in the legal system.

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: PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, G.R. No. 55514, February 18, 2013

December 2, 2013

Notarial Duty: Ensuring Personal Appearance in Document Acknowledgment

This case emphasizes the critical importance of a notary public verifying the personal appearance of individuals signing a document. The Supreme Court suspended a lawyer from practicing law for six months due to notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without ensuring the physical presence of the principals, highlighting the solemn duty of notaries to uphold the integrity of public documents. This ruling safeguards the public’s trust in the notarization process, requiring strict adherence to procedural formalities by legal professionals.

The Absent Signatories: A Case of Notarial Negligence

The case of Jofel P. Legaspi against Attys. Ramon Landrito and Magno Toribio arose from the alleged falsification of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). Legaspi claimed that Atty. Landrito used a falsified SPA in a DARAB case, while Atty. Toribio notarized the same SPA without verifying the presence of the principals. The crux of the issue lies in whether Atty. Toribio breached his duty as a notary public by notarizing the document without the physical presence of all signatories, and whether Atty. Landrito knowingly used a defective document in legal proceedings. The case underscores the significance of proper notarization practices and the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in ensuring the validity of legal documents.

The facts revealed that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon, two individuals named in the SPA, were residing in the United States and Canada, respectively, and could not have been physically present in the Philippines on the date of notarization. Evidence from the Bureau of Immigration confirmed their absence during the relevant period. Further, affidavits executed by Aristorenas and Aragon before Philippine Consulates in their respective countries attested that they signed the SPA outside of the Philippines, confirming the irregularity in the notarization process.

Atty. Toribio defended his actions by stating that Aristorenas and Aragon later affirmed the signatures on the SPA. Atty. Landrito asserted he was not involved in the SPA’s execution. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), after investigation, found Atty. Toribio guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and rules on notarial practice. However, the IBP recommended dismissing the case against Atty. Landrito. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, focused primarily on the notarial misconduct of Atty. Toribio.

The Court reiterated the importance of notarization, stating,

notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.

This highlights the trust and reliance placed on notaries public in ensuring the integrity of legal documents.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that a notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the individuals executing a document.

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 the truth of what are stated therein.

This principle safeguards against fraud and ensures that documents presented as public instruments carry the weight of authenticity.

The ruling underscores the ethical obligations of lawyers who serve as notaries public. They are held to a higher standard due to their solemn oath to uphold the law and avoid falsehoods. Failure to adhere to these duties results in disciplinary action, which in this case, was a six-month suspension from the practice of law and suspension of notarial commission for a similar period.

Concerning Atty. Landrito, the Court concurred with the IBP’s findings, stating that there was no evidence he participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA, nor did he knowingly use a defective document. Consequently, the case against him was dismissed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether Atty. Toribio violated the rules of notarial practice by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without ensuring the personal appearance of the principals.
Why is personal appearance important in notarization?	Personal appearance ensures that the individuals signing the document are who they claim to be, thereby preventing fraud and ensuring the document’s authenticity. It converts a private document into a public one.
What was the Court’s ruling regarding Atty. Toribio?	The Court found Atty. Toribio guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice, suspending him from the practice of law for six months. His notarial commission was suspended for six months.
What was the basis for Atty. Toribio’s suspension?	The suspension was based on his failure to ensure the personal appearance of Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon when he notarized the Special Power of Attorney.
What was the ruling regarding Atty. Landrito?	The Court dismissed the case against Atty. Landrito, finding no evidence that he participated in the SPA’s preparation or notarization, or that he knew of the defect.
What is the significance of this ruling for notaries public?	This ruling serves as a reminder to notaries public to strictly adhere to the rules of notarial practice, particularly the requirement of personal appearance, to maintain the integrity of public documents.
What potential ethical violations did Atty. Toribio commit?	By notarizing a document without the principals present, Atty. Toribio violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically those regarding obedience to laws and candor to the court.
What does the Court mean by saying notarization is invested with “substantive public interest”?	The Court means that notarization is not a mere formality but a process that affects the public’s confidence in legal documents, as it converts private documents into public ones recognized by law.

In conclusion, this case underscores the critical role of notaries public in ensuring the integrity of legal documents and the importance of adhering to established procedures. It serves as a reminder that failing to observe the rules on notarial practice can lead to serious consequences for legal professionals. The ruling reinforces the standard of care required from lawyers acting as notaries public, protecting the public’s interest in reliable and authentic legal documentation.

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: Jofel P. Legaspi v. Attys. Ramon Landrito and Magno Toribio, ADM. CASE NO. 7091, October 15, 2008

October 15, 2008

(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.

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.