Notarizing Outside Commission Territory: A Lawyer's Administrative Liability

A lawyer commissioned as a notary public in one city cannot simply notarize documents in another. The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Almazan v. Suerte-Felipe (A.C. No. 7184) reaffirms this basic but often overlooked rule, and it carries real consequences: suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from notarial commissions. The case is a useful reminder that notarization is a public function with strict territorial limits, not a routine clerical act.

What Happened in the Case

Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe with malpractice and gross negligence. The complaint alleged that the lawyer notarized an "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999" in Marikina City, even though he was not commissioned as a notary public there. The document's acknowledgment stated that Suerte-Felipe was a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina."

A certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City confirmed that the lawyer was not a commissioned notary public for that city from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance.

In his defense, Suerte-Felipe admitted notarizing the document but attached a certification showing he was commissioned as a notary public for the City of Pasig and the municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for 1998-1999. He also filed a counter-complaint against Almazan for harassment.

The Issue

The sole question before the Court: should the respondent be held administratively liable for notarizing a document outside his territorial jurisdiction?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court answered yes. The Court agreed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' findings but modified the penalty, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law, one year of disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and revocation of any existing notarial commission.

Territorial Limits Are Clear

The Court cited the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Notarial Law (Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended) to establish that a notary public's authority is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. The exact statutory text of these provisions is not available in the ASG law library, but the principle is well-established: a notary public may only perform notarial acts within the territory of the court that commissioned him or her.

Because Suerte-Felipe's commission came from the RTC of Pasig, his authority did not extend to Marikina City. Notarizing there was a clear violation.

Misrepresentation and the Lawyer's Oath

The Court also found that by stating in the acknowledgment that he was a notary public "for and in the City of Marikina" when he was not, the lawyer committed a "form of falsehood" that violates the lawyer's oath. This transgression also breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Citing Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales (557 Phil. 496 [2007]) and Nunga v. Atty. Viray (366 Phil. 155 [1999]), the Court emphasized that notarizing outside one's authority "partakes of malpractice of law and falsification." Performing a notarial act without a commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, and making it appear that one is duly commissioned when one is not is deliberate falsehood.

Why Notarization Matters

The Court stressed that notarization "is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act." It is invested with substantive public interest. Only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public, and the requirements for a commission are treated with "a formality definitely more than casual." This is why the Court treats territorial violations seriously, even when the lawyer is a first-time offender.

Practical Takeaways

• Check your commission's territorial scope. A notary public's authority is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Notarizing outside that area is a violation, even if the lawyer is otherwise qualified.
• Never misstate your authority in an acknowledgment. Stating a commission you do not hold is a falsehood that violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Notarization carries public interest. Courts view notarial acts as more than routine signing; they demand strict compliance with the rules.
• Penalties can be severe. Even for a first offense, the Court may impose suspension from practice, disqualification from notarial commissions, and revocation of existing commissions.
• Admission and remorse may mitigate, but do not erase, liability. The Court considered the respondent's acknowledgment of wrongdoing and first-offender status in reducing the penalty, but liability remained.

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