Negligence in Notarial Duties Upholding Public Trust in Legal Documents

The Supreme Court's decision in Buenafe v. Lirazan (A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019) serves as a firm reminder that notarization is far more than a routine ministerial act. When a notary public fails to keep accurate records of documents they notarize, the consequences extend beyond administrative penalties — they erode public confidence in the integrity of legal documents. This case illustrates how negligence in notarial duties can result in suspension from law practice, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from future appointment.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe owned a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1447. In 2008, she discovered that a certain Serena Garaygay had paid real estate taxes on her property. Upon verification, complainant found an undated document called a "Conformity," purportedly signed by her brother Jose G. Roa and notarized by respondent Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan. The document bore specific notarial details.

Based on this document, a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in favor of Serena. Complainant alleged that her brother's signature was forged. More tellingly, verification with the National Archives revealed that no such document existed in their records. Instead, the notarial details corresponded to a different document — a Certification dated December 1, 2002, executed by a certain SPO1 Edmundo S. Acosido.

Respondent denied falsifying the document, claiming that Jose personally appeared before him for notarization. He attributed the recording error to his secretary and argued that any mistake was made in good faith.

The Issue Presented

The central question was whether respondent's failure to properly record the notarized document in his notarial register constituted administrative liability, despite his claim of good faith and delegation of recording duties to his secretary.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) but modified the recommended penalty. The Court found respondent guilty of violating Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act, but rather an act invested with substantive public interest. A notarized document is converted from a private document into a public document, admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. This is precisely why notaries must observe the basic requirements of their duties with utmost care.

Key Principles Established

Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires notaries to record specific details for every notarial act, including entry and page numbers, date and time, type of notarial act, description of the instrument, and the names and addresses of principals. Failure to make proper entries constitutes ground for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanctions.

The Court rejected respondent's attempt to blame his secretary. Recording notarial acts is a personal duty of the notary public, not a task that can be delegated. This contravenes Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from delegating tasks that only members of the Bar may perform.

Notably, the Court found that respondent used the same notarial details for two different documents — the conformity and the certification. This discrepancy engendered doubt that the conformity was truly notarized. The Court held that respondent's failure was inexcusable and constituted gross negligence in carefully discharging his duties as a notary public.

The Penalty Imposed

The Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his notarial commission if presently commissioned, and disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years. He was also sternly warned that repetition of similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

In imposing this penalty, the Court cited jurisprudence including Malvar v. Baleros and Spouses Chambon v. Ruiz, where lawyers who delegated notarial recording duties to staff faced similar consequences.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization carries substantive public interest. Notaries must treat every notarial act with the highest degree of care, as notarized documents are entitled to full faith and credit.

• Recording duties are personal and non-delegable. A notary public cannot shift responsibility for maintaining the notarial register to secretaries or staff. The law requires the notary personally to make proper entries.

• Good faith is not a defense. Claiming that recording errors were made in good faith does not excuse negligence in notarial duties. The standard is strict compliance.

• Discrepancies in notarial records raise serious doubts. Using the same notarial details for different documents undermines the authenticity of notarized instruments and may lead to administrative sanctions.

• Administrative penalties can be severe. Beyond revocation of notarial commission, negligence in notarial duties can result in suspension from law practice and disqualification from future notarial appointments.

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