Notarization Is Not Routine: A Lawyer’s Duty to Verify Identity

A notary public who treats acknowledgment as a mere formality risks more than embarrassment: the Supreme Court can revoke the notarial commission and suspend the lawyer from practice. In Tabas v. Atty. Mangibin (A.C. No. 5602, February 3, 2004, 466 Phil. 296), the Court reminded all lawyers that notarization is an act invested with public interest, and verifying the person who appears before the notary is a non-negotiable duty.

What Happened

Complainant Hilda D. Tabas mortgaged her real property to Anastacia Galvan to secure a P48,000 loan. The deed of real estate mortgage was duly registered and annotated on the tax declaration.

Months later, a woman named Lilia Castillejos appeared before respondent Atty. Bonifacio B. Mangibin and falsely represented herself as Hilda Tabas. She asked the lawyer to prepare a discharge of the real estate mortgage and to notarize it afterward. The lawyer prepared the document and notarized it after asking Lilia Castillejos only for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). He did not ask for other identification or question her further.

Using the notarized discharge, Galvan succeeded in mortgaging the same property again, this time to a rural bank. When the real Tabas learned of the cancellation, she told the lawyer her signature was forged. Instead of helping, he allegedly threatened to file a counter-suit.

The Issue

The case asked whether the lawyer was liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting revocation of his notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.

The Lawyer’s Defense

Atty. Mangibin admitted the discharge was a forgery but claimed good faith. He argued that he did not know of Lilia Castillejos’ fraudulent intent and that he should not be faulted for relying on the CTC bearing the complainant’s name. He claimed it was beyond the “realm of his duty” to investigate identity and that, as a matter of routine, he normally required only CTCs. He also said he had no available means of ascertaining the true identity of persons appearing before him.

The Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected the defense and ruled that the lawyer was grossly negligent. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely on an acknowledgment executed by a notary public.

Because of that public trust, a notary public must observe the basic requirements of the job with utmost care. A notary should not notarize a document unless the person who signed it is the very same person who executed it and personally appeared before the notary to attest to its contents. This requirement exists so the notary can verify the genuineness of the signature and determine that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

The Court found that Atty. Mangibin took even ordinary precautions. The acknowledgment portion of the document he notarized contained the standard phrase that Hilda Tabas “personally appeared” and was “known to me” — yet the lawyer did not actually know her and had done little to confirm her identity. Considering how easily CTCs can be obtained, and the legal effect of notarizing a discharge of real estate mortgage, the lawyer should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain identity.

The Court also highlighted a glaring detail: the lawyer himself prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage. He therefore had adequate opportunity to verify Lilia Castillejos’ identity and to interview her about the background of the mortgage being cancelled. Instead, he merely took her word that she was Hilda Tabas. The Court called this neglect inexcusable.

By notarizing without ascertaining the identity of the signatory, the lawyer acted with reckless disregard of professional duties. He caused grave injury to the complainant and undermined public confidence in notarial documents. In doing so, he breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.

The Penalty

The Court revoked Atty. Mangibin’s notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for two years. The Court also suspended him from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately, and directed him to report receipt of the Decision so the Court could determine when the suspension began.

Practical Takeaways

• A CTC is not enough. Notaries must require competent evidence of identity, especially when the document has significant legal and financial consequences.
• Preparing the document does not excuse carelessness. A lawyer who drafts and then notarizes a deed has an even greater opportunity — and duty — to confirm who is signing.
• The acknowledgment phrase has real meaning. When a notary states that a person is “known to me,” that is a professional representation that can be checked and may be penalized if false.
• Good faith is not a shield. Honest mistake does not erase gross negligence when basic safeguards are ignored.
• Notarial misconduct carries professional consequences. Beyond revocation of the commission, a lawyer can be suspended from the practice of law for failing to verify identity.

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