Certifying Authenticity Attorneys Responsibility AND THE Limits OF Notarial Power

A lawyer’s duty to uphold the law extends beyond the courtroom. In Lucente v. Evangelista, Jr. (A.C. No. 5957, February 4, 2003), the Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer for certifying true copies of documents he did not notarize and did not have custody of. The case clarifies that notarization is a serious act with substantive public interest, and that lawyers who engage in unauthorized certification face administrative sanctions.

The Facts of the Case

Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. was the son of the late Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, who had notarized two deeds in the 1970s: a Deed of Quitclaim (May 7, 1977) and a Deed of Absolute Sale (January 7, 1972), both involving properties in Ormoc City.

On January 30, 1990, the younger Evangelista issued certified true copies of these instruments. Based on those certifications, the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City issued a Transfer Certificate of Title in favor of a third party.

Complainants charged Evangelista with gross misconduct, deceit, and falsification of public documents. They argued that he had no authority to certify the documents because he was not the notary public who acknowledged them, nor was he the custodian of the originals.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether a lawyer who certifies true copies of documents notarized by another person—without being the notary or the custodian of the originals—commits professional misconduct.

Evangelista raised procedural defenses, including res judicata and forum shopping, arguing that the same issues were pending in a criminal case and a civil case. The Court rejected these defenses, holding that disbarment proceedings are separate from judicial cases and that the Court’s administrative powers over lawyers are not barred by prior or pending litigation.

The Ruling: Gross Misconduct

The Supreme Court found Evangelista guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.

The Court cited Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917, which requires notaries public to keep a notarial register and to supply certified copies of their official acts. Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code require the notary to forward the register to the Clerk of Court for safekeeping.

Evangelista was neither the notary public before whom the documents were acknowledged nor the custodian of the originals. The Records Management and Archives Office certified that no copy of the Deed of Quitclaim was even on file. By issuing the certifications anyway, he engaged in unlawful and deceitful conduct, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Why Notarization Matters

The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Because of this, only those qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. Those who are not authorized must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and administrative offices.

The ruling also addressed the respondent’s defense that he acted as a partner of the law office. The Court rejected this, noting that partnership in a law firm does not confer notarial authority. Each notarial act is personal to the commissioned notary public.

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer cannot certify documents notarized by another person, even a parent or a partner in the same law office. Only the notary public who acknowledged the document, or the custodian of the original records, may issue certified true copies.
• Notarization carries substantive public interest. Treating it as a routine clerical act invites administrative liability.
• Disbarment proceedings are not barred by res judicata or forum shopping. These doctrines apply to judicial cases, not to the Court’s disciplinary authority over lawyers.
• Procedural technicalities will not shield a lawyer from discipline. The Court liberally construes procedural rules to achieve substantial justice, especially in administrative cases involving lawyer misconduct.
• Certifying documents without authority can lead to suspension. In this case, the penalty was six months’ suspension with a warning that further infractions would be dealt with more severely.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.