Negligence in Notarial Duties Upholding Attorneys Oath and Public Trust

The Supreme Court has long held that a notary public occupies a position of public trust. When a lawyer notarizes a document without observing the elementary formalities required by law, the consequences are severe. In Traya, Jr. v. Villamor (A.C. No. 4595, February 6, 2004), the Court permanently disqualified a lawyer from being commissioned as a notary public for gross misconduct in his notarial practice. The case serves as a stern reminder that negligence in notarial duties violates the attorney's oath and undermines public confidence in the legal profession.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a letter-complaint filed by Octavio J. Traya, Jr., then Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, against Atty. Francisco M. Villamor. The complaint concerned an affidavit purportedly executed by one Rolando de la Cruz, who was residing abroad at the time.

The affidavit was prepared in connection with a building permit application filed by de la Cruz's sister. The document made it appear that de la Cruz was a resident of Abuyog, Leyte, and that he was executing the affidavit to attest to the veracity of facts stated therein. Atty. Villamor notarized this affidavit even though the purported affiant was abroad.

The Notary's Defense

In his answer, Atty. Villamor claimed that a man identifying himself as de la Cruz appeared at his office and presented the affidavit for notarization. According to the respondent, he asked the man if he was Rolando de la Cruz, and the man affirmed that he was. The respondent further claimed that he asked about the residence certificate, and the man said he did not bring it but indicated its serial number in the jurat.

The respondent also argued that the complainant filed the case against him out of ill motive, because he had previously filed cases against the mayor before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Duty to Demand Signature in the Notary's Presence

The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's defense. The Court cited its earlier ruling in Realino v. Villamor, which stressed that it is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that the document presented for notarization be signed in his presence. The Court explained that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.

By the respondent's own admission, the affidavit was already signed by the purported affiant when it was presented to him. He therefore failed to heed his duty to demand that the document be signed in his presence.

False Statement Regarding the Residence Certificate

The Court also found that the respondent made it appear in the jurat that the affiant exhibited a residence certificate when, in fact, he did not. The residence certificate number indicated in the document turned out to belong to de la Cruz's brother-in-law.

The Court cited Vda. de Guerrero v. Hernando, which held that where a lawyer, as a notary, makes it appear in the acknowledgment or jurat that the affiant exhibited a residence certificate when in fact he did not, the notary is guilty of misconduct. Such misrepresentation is censurable and justifies disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that the respondent violated the mandate in his attorney's oath to "obey the law" and "do no falsehood."

The Ruling

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct in his notarial practice. Considering that the respondent had previously been reprimanded and warned in connection with his notarial duties, and despite this he demonstrated a clear and blatant disregard thereof, the Court imposed the penalty of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The Court also ruled that the respondent's imputation of ill motive against the complainant was immaterial to the merits of the case. The allegations of ulterior motive did not excuse the respondent's failure to observe the formalities required of a notary public.

Practical Takeaways

• A notary must require the affiant to sign the document in his presence. Notarizing a document that is already signed, even if the person claiming to be the affiant appears before the notary, is a violation of notarial duties.

• Never make false statements in a jurat or acknowledgment. Indicating a residence certificate number when no certificate was actually exhibited constitutes misconduct and a violation of the attorney's oath.

• The duty of a notary public is impressed with public interest. Notarial documents are entitled to full faith and credit, and notaries must observe utmost care in performing their duties.

• Prior administrative sanctions will be considered. A lawyer who has been previously disciplined for notarial lapses faces stricter penalties for repeated violations.

• Motives of the complainant are immaterial. Even if the complaint was filed out of ill will, this does not excuse a lawyer's failure to comply with notarial formalities.

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