Negligence in Notarization Upholding the Integrity of Public Documents in the Philippines

In a 2004 administrative case, the Supreme Court reminded all lawyers commissioned as notaries public that notarization is never a routine or empty act. When a notary affixes a signature and seal without ensuring the persons who signed the document actually appeared before him, the consequences extend beyond the parties involved—they erode public faith in the integrity of public documents. The case of Follosco v. Mateo (A.C. No. 6186, February 3, 2004) illustrates this principle and the professional price of negligence.

The Facts of the Case

Complainants Vicente and Hermilina Follosco owned a house and lot in Tanay, Rizal, which they mortgaged to Dr. Epitacio Tongohan for a loan of P50,000.00. Several related documents were executed and notarized by respondent Atty. Rafael Mateo in his capacity as notary public for the Province of Rizal. These included a Sinumpaang Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan, a Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan, a Sinumpaang Salaysay, a Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan, and a Promissory Note.

The complainants later claimed that their signatures on these documents were forged. They filed criminal complaints for falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, Atty. Mateo, and the instrumental witnesses. While some charges were dismissed against the notary, a reinvestigation was ordered. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) subsequently issued a questioned documents report concluding that the questioned signatures and the standard sample signatures "were not written by one and the same person."

Using these forged documents, new tax declarations were issued in Dr. Tongohan's name, effectively canceling the tax declarations in the name of complainant Vicente Follosco.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Mateo should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public when he notarized documents without requiring the affiants to personally appear before him and without verifying the genuineness of their signatures.

The Ruling: Notarization Is Not an Empty Act

The Supreme Court agreed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that the respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence in his duties as notary public. The Court cited Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, which explicitly requires that the notary public certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him, that he is the same person who executed it, and that he acknowledged it as his free act and deed. The party acknowledging must appear before the notary public.

Atty. Mateo did not deny notarizing the questioned documents. He claimed that the documents were already prepared and executed when submitted to him, and because he was familiar with the complainants, he "unsuspectingly" affixed his signatures. The Court rejected this defense, holding that good faith cannot relieve a notary from the consequences of a reckless failure to comply with the law.

Quoting Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, the Court emphasized: "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest." Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public.

The Court further noted that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. This requirement enables the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.

A Graver Responsibility for Lawyer-Notaries

The Court stressed that when the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility rests on his shoulders by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. The Code of Professional Responsibility commands lawyers not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The Court took note of the "careless practice of some lawyers who notarize documents without requiring the physical presence of the affiants." Such practice, the Court warned, undermines the integrity of notarization and degrades the function itself.

The Penalty

The Court suspended Atty. Rafael Mateo from the practice of law for three months, revoked his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibited him from being commissioned as notary public for one year, effective immediately, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize without personal appearance. The affiant must personally appear before the notary public. This is a non-negotiable requirement under the Notarial Law.
• Verify identity and genuineness of signature. The notary must be satisfied that the person acknowledging is the same person who executed the document and that the signature is genuine.
• Good faith is not a defense. A notary who acts recklessly cannot escape liability by claiming he was unsuspecting or had no intent to cause damage.
• Notarization carries public interest. Converting a private document into a public document gives it full faith and credit. Carelessness here erodes public trust in the legal system.
• Lawyer-notaries face double liability. A negligent notary who is also a lawyer may face both administrative sanctions for notarial misconduct and disciplinary action for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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