ASG Law

Tag: Public Act 2103

  • Upholding Integrity: Attorneys’ Duty to Ensure Authenticity in Notarizing Documents

    The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the critical duty of attorneys, acting as notaries public, to verify the identity of individuals signing documents. An attorney’s failure to confirm the identities of those appearing before them and attesting to the truth of the document’s content can lead to disciplinary actions. This responsibility is paramount for upholding the integrity of legal processes and maintaining public trust in the legal profession.

    When a Notary Overlooks Impersonation: Examining a Breach of Professional Ethics

    The case of Social Security Commission vs. Atty. Napoleon Corral (A.C. No. 6249, October 14, 2004) stemmed from a complaint filed by the Social Security Commission (SSC) against Atty. Napoleon Corral. The SSC accused Atty. Corral of misconduct for notarizing complaints purportedly executed by individuals who had already passed away. The charges involved multiple instances where Atty. Corral notarized documents for individuals who were later found to be deceased or who denied ever appearing before him. The central issue revolves around the extent of an attorney’s responsibility to verify the identities of individuals seeking notarization services.

    The SSC presented evidence showing that Atty. Corral had notarized complaints in the name of deceased individuals, Hermogenes Bareno and Domingo N. Panadero, and another individual, Catalino de la Cruz, who denied ever appearing before him. In his defense, Atty. Corral argued that he relied on the impostors’ possession of identification documents, such as SSS cards and forms, and that he was not obligated to conduct further investigations. However, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Corral failed to exercise the necessary diligence in fulfilling his duties as a notary public. Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) mandates that individuals appearing before a notary public must personally appear to acknowledge the document.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the notarial act and the responsibility of notaries public to ensure the authenticity of documents. The Court referenced previous decisions to underscore the solemnity of the oath in acknowledgments and jurats, stating that “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.” An attorney’s role as a notary public carries a heightened responsibility due to their solemn oath to uphold the law and avoid falsehoods.

    The Court highlighted Atty. Corral’s failure to take adequate precautions to verify the identities of the individuals who appeared before him. Merely relying on the presentation of identification documents, without further investigation or verification, was deemed insufficient. This negligence undermined the public’s confidence in notarial documents. By failing to ensure that the individuals attesting to the truth of the complaints were indeed who they claimed to be, Atty. Corral violated Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Napoleon Corral’s notarial commission be indefinitely suspended for violating Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court further directed him to show cause as to why he should not be disbarred, emphasizing the severity of his misconduct and the potential consequences for his professional standing. The decision serves as a reminder to all attorneys acting as notaries public to exercise utmost care and diligence in verifying the identities of individuals seeking notarization services, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal profession and maintaining public trust.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Napoleon Corral breached his duty as a notary public by notarizing documents for individuals who were deceased or who denied ever appearing before him.
    What did the Social Security Commission allege against Atty. Corral? The SSC alleged that Atty. Corral prepared, notarized, and filed complaints with the Commission that were purportedly executed and verified by people who were already dead.
    What was Atty. Corral’s defense? Atty. Corral argued that he relied on the impostors’ possession of identification documents and was not obligated to conduct further investigations into their identities.
    What does Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) require? Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) requires that individuals acknowledging a document before a notary public must personally appear before the notary.
    What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Corral violate? Atty. Corral violated Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Atty. Corral’s notarial commission and directed him to show cause as to why he should not be disbarred.
    Why is notarization considered a solemn act? Notarization is considered a solemn act because it involves an oath, and it assures the public that the document was duly executed and acknowledged.
    What is the duty of a notary public in verifying the identity of an individual? A notary public has the duty to require the person executing a document to be personally present and to ascertain their identity to ensure the authenticity of the document.

    This case underscores the critical importance of ethical conduct and diligence among legal professionals. The decision serves as a reminder that attorneys, in their capacity as notaries public, play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of legal documents and maintaining 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: Social Security Commission vs. Atty. Napoleon Corral, A.C. No. 6249, October 14, 2004

  • Notarial Duty and Due Diligence: Attorneys Cannot Notarize Documents They Sign on Behalf of Others

    The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer cannot notarize a document if they are also signing it on behalf of someone else. This decision emphasizes the importance of a notary public’s impartiality and the need to ensure that all affiants personally appear before them to attest to the truth of the document’s contents. The Court underscored that notarization serves to minimize fraud and ensure public confidence in legal documents, a purpose undermined when the notary is also a signatory.

    When Lawyers Oversign: Can Attorneys Serve as Both Signatory and Notary?

    This case arose from a complaint filed against Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr., for allegedly failing to observe honesty and utmost care in his duties as a notary public. The complainants, Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr., and Bartolome Evarolo, Sr., alleged that Atty. Sabate notarized a “Motion to Dismiss With Answer” in an SEC case, where he signed the verification on behalf of some of the respondents. Specifically, the complainants claimed that Atty. Sabate signed for Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, and allowed Lilian Diaz to sign for Paterno Diaz, without these individuals personally appearing before him. This act, according to the complainants, undermined public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

    In his defense, Atty. Sabate argued that he signed on behalf of his clients, Pagunsan and Bofetiado, with their authorization, indicated by the word “By” preceding his signature. He also claimed that Lilian Diaz was authorized to sign for her husband, Paterno Diaz, and that he notarized the document based on these authorizations. He cited the distance of his clients’ residences and the urgency of filing the pleading as justification for his actions. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension of Atty. Sabate’s notarial commission, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted. The Supreme Court further examined the case to determine the extent of Atty. Sabate’s liability and the appropriate sanction.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the crucial role of a notary public in safeguarding against illegal or immoral arrangements. The Court stated that:

    The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.

    The Court cited Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, which outlines the requirements for acknowledgments:

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

    Building on this, the Supreme Court clarified that a notary public must ensure that the individuals signing a document are the same persons who personally appear before them, attesting to the truth and contents of the document. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated, as their statements are based on personal knowledge. If a representative signs on their behalf, the representative’s name should appear in the document as the one who executed it. Therefore, it is only then that they can affix their signatures and personally appear before the notary public for notarization. This principle ensures the integrity and reliability of notarized documents.

    The Court held that as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Sabate was mandated to uphold the duties of his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Failing to meet this responsibility carries commensurate consequences for professional indiscretion. The urgency of the situation, as argued by Atty. Sabate, did not excuse his failure to comply with the Notarial Law. The Court reiterated that members of the legal profession are required to obey the laws of the land at all times.

    The Supreme Court found that Atty. Sabate failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public by notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With Answer when three of the affiants were not personally present. Additionally, he notarized the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. from his commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

    This decision underscores the principle that lawyers must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, especially when performing notarial functions. A notary public’s role is to ensure the integrity and authenticity of documents, which requires strict compliance with the Notarial Law. Attorneys must understand that signing on behalf of clients and then notarizing those signatures is a breach of their professional obligations. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of due diligence and the need to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an attorney could notarize a document that they also signed on behalf of other individuals, without those individuals personally appearing before them.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court ruled that it is a breach of notarial duty for a lawyer to notarize a document they also signed on behalf of others, as it compromises the impartiality required of a notary public.
    Why is it a problem for a lawyer to notarize a document they also signed? It undermines the integrity of the notarization process because the notary public’s role is to ensure the document’s authenticity and that the signatories are who they claim to be, which is compromised when the notary is also a signatory.
    What is the role of a notary public? A notary public is responsible for verifying the identity of signatories, ensuring they understand the contents of the document, and attesting to the authenticity of their signatures, thereby minimizing fraud.
    What law governs notarial acts in the Philippines? Public Act No. 2103 and the Rules on Notarial Practice, as promulgated by the Supreme Court, govern notarial acts in the Philippines, outlining the requirements and responsibilities of notary publics.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Sabate in this case? Atty. Sabate was suspended from his commission as a Notary Public for a period of one year due to his failure to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty.
    Can someone authorize another person to sign a document on their behalf for notarization? While a representative can sign on behalf of someone else, the representative’s name should appear in the document as the one who executed it, and they must personally appear before the notary public for notarization.
    What should an attorney do if a client cannot personally appear for notarization? The attorney should ensure that the document accurately reflects who is signing and appearing, and that the person appearing has proper authorization. If proper authorization is not possible, the attorney should advise the client to appear personally.

    In conclusion, this case underscores the critical importance of upholding the integrity of notarial practice and adhering to the duties and responsibilities of a notary public. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct and due diligence in all their professional activities.

    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: PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., AND BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR., RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 3324, February 09, 2000