Notarial Duty and Due Diligence: Attorneys Cannot Notarize Documents They Sign for Others

The Supreme Court has long held that the office of a notary public is impressed with public interest. A notary's function is not merely to authenticate signatures but to guard against fraud and ensure the integrity of legal documents. In Villarin v. Sabate, Jr. (A.C. No. 3324, February 9, 2000), the Court reminded lawyers that they cannot act as both signatory and notary to the same instrument—even when they believe they are acting in good faith and with proper authorization.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The respondents in that case, through their counsel Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr., filed a "Motion to Dismiss With Answer." The pleading contained a Verification signed by several respondents.

However, the signatures of three respondents—Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan, and Alejandro Bofetiado—were not made by them personally. Instead, Lilian Diaz signed for her husband Paterno, and Atty. Sabate himself signed for Pagunsan and Bofetiado. Each signature was preceded by the word "By," indicating that someone else signed on behalf of the affiant.

Atty. Sabate then notarized the same document. He claimed he had written authorizations from his clients, and that he signed for them because of the distance of their residences and the urgency of filing deadlines.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether a lawyer who signs a verification on behalf of clients may also notarize the same document. The Court answered with a clear no.

The Ruling: A Notary Cannot Be a Signatory

The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Sabate's actions constituted a failure to exercise due diligence in upholding his duties as a notary public. The Court suspended his commission as notary public for one year.

The Court explained that the very purpose of an acknowledgment is to minimize fraud. If the notary public is also one of the signatories, he would have a personal interest in sustaining the validity of the instrument. This places him in an inconsistent position and defeats the protective function of notarization.

The Court also cited Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, which requires that the notary certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. This duty cannot be delegated. The acts of affiants cannot be performed through representatives, because the statements in a verification are facts they have personal knowledge of and must swear to personally.

Key Principles on Notarial Practice

The decision establishes several important rules for lawyers and notaries public:

First, a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who personally appeared before him to attest to its contents. This personal appearance requirement is absolute.

Second, a lawyer cannot sign a verification on behalf of a client and then notarize that same document. Having signed the verification, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as notary public.

Third, the word "By" before a signature does not cure the defect. If a representative signs for another, the representative's name should appear as the one who executed the document, and that representative must personally appear before the notary.

Fourth, urgency is not an excuse. The Court stated that being confronted with an alleged urgent situation does not justify violating the law. A lawyer is required to obey the laws of the land at all times.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize a document you signed. A lawyer who is a signatory to an instrument cannot also act as its notary public. This creates an inherent conflict that undermines the purpose of notarization.
• Personal appearance is mandatory. Affiants must personally appear before the notary public. Their statements cannot be made through representatives or attorneys-in-fact.
• Authorizations do not override notarial law. Even with written authority from clients, a lawyer cannot sign for them in a verification and then notarize the document. The verification requires personal knowledge and personal oath.
• The word "By" does not save the document. Indicating that a signature was made by a representative does not satisfy the requirements of the Notarial Law unless the representative himself appears before the notary.
• Urgency is never a defense. Tight deadlines and practical difficulties do not excuse a notary public from complying with legal requirements.

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