Notarial Negligence and Lawyer Accountability: Serzo v. Flores on Falsified Deeds
The Supreme Court revoked a notary's commission and suspended him for two years after he notarized a deed of sale signed by a man who had already died.
A notary public who notarizes a document without confirming that the signatories personally appeared before him commits a serious breach of duty. In Serzo v. Atty. Romeo M. Flores (A.C. No. 6040, July 30, 2004), the Supreme Court revoked a lawyer's notarial commission and suspended him from law practice for two years after he notarized a deed of sale involving a vendor who had already been dead for more than a month.
What Happened in the Case
Zenaida Gonzales Serzo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Romeo M. Flores. The complaint arose from Flores's notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 28, 2000, covering a 7,500-square-meter parcel of land in Cardona, Rizal.
The land belonged to Serzo's father, Neybardo Gonzales. He had died on October 16, 2000 — more than a month before the deed was supposedly signed. Yet the deed stated that Gonzales sold the property to one Yolanda dela Cruz, and it bore what appeared to be his signature.
The document also contained an entry indicating that Gonzales's wife, Maura Villarina, gave her marital consent. She too had long been dead. The person who signed on her behalf was the complainant's sister, Amelia Gonzales Laureno.
The deed's execution led to a separate criminal charge for falsification of public document against Laureno, the alleged buyer, and the two instrumental witnesses.
The Notary's Defense
Flores did not deny notarizing the document. He claimed that the parties — especially the buyer, who was known to his office staff — had prior records of instruments he had notarized, but that the vendor's identity "may have not been disclosed" to him. He suggested that someone may have impersonated Gonzales.
He also said it was his practice to require parties to appear personally and to present identification such as a community tax certificate, passport, or driver's license. At the same time, he admitted he could no longer recall the parties or their names because the document had been notarized almost two years earlier.
What the Court Ruled
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline found Flores guilty of negligence for failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him. The Supreme Court agreed.
The Court gave weight to the fact that Flores had previously notarized documents executed by Gonzales during his lifetime. A list of those documents was submitted in evidence. Given that prior dealings, the Court held, Flores should have known Gonzales's person. Instead, he notarized the deed despite the vendor's absence — and despite the vendor being already dead.
The Court described Flores's contradictory explanations as showing a callous disregard for his responsibilities as a notary public and as a lawyer. It stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, and only qualified or authorized persons may serve as notaries public.
Because of this, notaries public must observe the basic requirements of their duties with utmost care. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth.
The Court found that Flores undermined public confidence in notarial documents and breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. That canon requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 of the same Code, which the Court cited, prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
The Penalty
The Supreme Court revoked Flores's notarial commission, if still existing, for violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for two years.
He was also suspended from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately, and directed to report the date he received the decision so the Court could determine when his suspension would take effect.
Why This Case Matters
Serzo illustrates how seriously the Supreme Court treats notarial functions. A notary's seal carries the weight of public trust, and lawyers who treat notarization as a mere formality risk both their commission and their license.
The case also shows that prior dealings with a client can work against a notary. Because Flores had notarized Gonzales's documents before, he could not credibly claim he was misled about the vendor's identity.
For property owners and buyers alike, the ruling reinforces a simple safeguard: a notarized deed is only as reliable as the notary's diligence. When that diligence fails, the consequences can reach both criminal and administrative liability.
Practical Takeaways
- A notary public must require the signatories to personally appear and must verify their identities before notarizing any document.
- Notarizing a deed without confirming the presence and identity of the parties can lead to revocation of the notarial commission and suspension from law practice.
- A lawyer's prior dealings with a client make it harder to claim that an impostor misled him during notarization.
- Notarization is a substantive public act, not a routine formality, and errors in it can undermine public confidence in legal documents.
- Buyers of real property should independently verify the identity and legal capacity of sellers, especially when the transaction involves a deceased owner's property.
This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.
Have a question about this topic?
This article is general information, not legal advice. Ask ASG Legal AI for a cited, plain-language answer on your own situation — free, no sign-up.