Notarial Standards and Valid ID: The 2004 Rules Apply Prospectively, Not Retroactively

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere ministerial act; it is a public duty that transforms a private document into a public one, giving it full credit on its face. But what happens when a lawyer is accused of violating notarial standards that did not exist at the time of the notarized act? In In re: Decision Dated September 26, 2012 in OMB-M-A-10-023-A, etc. Against Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan (A.C. No. 9676, April 2, 2018), the Court clarified that a notary public cannot be held administratively liable for failing to comply with rules that were not yet in effect when the document was notarized.

The Facts of the Case

In July 2003, Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan, then a District Public Attorney in Mati, Davao Oriental, notarized a Deed of Partition. Eight farmer-beneficiaries, who were indigent and had no government-issued identification cards, appeared before him. They presented only their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) as proof of identity, signed the document in his presence, and affirmed that its contents were true and correct. Atty. Diuyan notarized the deed for free, as the parties were indigent.

Years later, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that one of the signatories, Alejandro F. Camilo, had died on August 23, 2001—almost two years before the deed was notarized. The Ombudsman referred the matter to the Supreme Court, which treated it as an administrative complaint against Atty. Diuyan.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition based solely on the affiants' CTCs, without requiring more stringent identification.

The Ruling: No Liability Under the Applicable Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Diuyan for lack of merit. The Court ruled that the law applicable at the time of notarization—July 23, 2003—only required the presentation of CTCs. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which impose stricter identification requirements, were not yet in effect.

At the time, the governing law was the notarial law under the Revised Administrative Code (Act No. 2711), which required notaries public to certify that parties presented their residence certificates. Commonwealth Act No. 465 likewise required the exhibition of residence certificates upon certain occasions, such as acknowledging documents before a notary public. Atty. Diuyan complied with these requirements.

The Principle: Laws Apply Prospectively

The Court cited Mabini v. Atty. Kintanar (A.C. No. 9512, February 5, 2018) for the principle that a lawyer cannot be held liable for violating notarial duties when the law in effect at the time of the complained act does not prohibit the act. The IBP had erred in applying the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice retroactively to a notarization that occurred before its effectivity.

The Court also noted that there was nothing irregular on the face of the Deed of Partition that should have prompted Atty. Diuyan to ask probing questions. The deed was a valid exercise of the farmers' right to divide their collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) into individual titles—an act expressly allowed by Department of Agrarian Reform rules.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarial standards evolve over time. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice impose stricter identification requirements than the old law, but they apply only to notarizations made after their effectivity.
• A notary's duty is judged by the law in force at the time of notarization. A lawyer cannot be disciplined for failing to follow rules that did not yet exist.
• CTCs were sufficient proof of identity under the old law. Under the 2004 Rules, however, a notary must require competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID or the personal knowledge of the notary.
• Notarizing for indigent parties is commendable but not an excuse for non-compliance. Even when notarizing for free, a notary must follow the applicable rules.
• When in doubt, ask questions. While Atty. Diuyan was cleared because nothing on the face of the deed alerted him to irregularity, notaries should remain vigilant to avoid notarizing documents with apparent defects.

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