Notarizing Without the Signatory: When a Lawyer's Carelessness Leads to a Permanent Notarial Ban

The Supreme Court has long treated notarization as far more than a routine act of stamping a document. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. When a lawyer notarizes a document without the signatory present, the act strikes at the integrity of the legal profession itself.

In Loberes-Pintal v. Atty. Baylosis (A.C. No. 11545, January 24, 2017), the Court permanently barred a lawyer from being commissioned as a notary public for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Case

Complainant Susan Loberes-Pintal filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis. She alleged that her husband, Roldan Pintal, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. Atty. Baylosis notarized the petition's verification and certification against non-forum shopping on May 13, 2011.

The complainant presented evidence that Roldan was not in the country on that date. A certification from the Bureau of Immigration showed he left the Philippines on April 10, 2011 and returned only on September 8, 2011. A barangay certification also stated he was not a resident of Caloocan City.

Atty. Baylosis denied the accusation. He claimed he personally interviewed Roldan in January 2011, that Roldan reviewed and signed the petition around March 2011, and that the May 13, 2011 date was an "honest mistake" by his staff.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Baylosis violated the rules on notarial practice when he notarized a document while the signatory was abroad and not physically present before him.

The Ruling

The Court found Atty. Baylosis guilty of violating Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This provision prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present before the notary at the time of notarization.

The Court gave no credence to Atty. Baylosis' explanation. The Bureau of Immigration certification was clear: Roldan was out of the country on May 13, 2011. By affixing his signature and notarial seal, Atty. Baylosis falsely attested that Roldan personally appeared before him on that day.

The Court also found him in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Why Desistance Does Not Matter

The complainant later filed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating she no longer wished to pursue the complaint. The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal on this basis.

The Court rejected this approach. Citing Bautista v. Bernabe, it emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are not civil actions between private parties. They are undertaken for the public welfare, to keep courts free from unfit practitioners. The complainant's withdrawal does not warrant dismissal if the charges are proven by the record.

The Penalty

The IBP recommended a two-year disqualification from notarial commission. The Court imposed a harsher penalty: permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, with a stern warning of more severe consequences for any repetition.

The Court relied on Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015), which established the penalty of permanent disqualification for similar violations.

Practical Takeaways

• A notary public must never notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before them at the exact time of notarization. This requirement is absolute.
• The date on the notarial certificate must be the actual date the signatory appeared. Clerical errors by staff are not a valid excuse.
• Notarizing a document falsely is a serious ethical violation, not a mere technical lapse. It can lead to permanent loss of notarial commission.
• A complainant's desistance does not automatically end a disciplinary case. The Court may proceed based on the evidence on record.
• Lawyers who are also notaries public must remember that notarial duties are "impressed with public interest." Failure to observe the basic requirements undermines public confidence in legal documents.

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