Notarial Duty Consequences Of Neglecting Proper Identification IN Philippine LAW

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but one impressed with public interest. When a notary public fails to verify the identity of persons executing documents, the consequences can be severe—including suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary. A recent decision illustrates these stakes clearly.

The Case Before the Court

In an administrative complaint filed before the Supreme Court, the heirs of the late Teodora A. Unite sought the disbarment of Atty. Raymund P. Guzman. The complainants alleged that the lawyer notarized a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos on November 24, 2010, without requiring the parties to present competent evidence of their identities.

The deed involved a donation of a portion of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20432(S), located in Ballesteros, Cagayan. The donor was Jose U. Torrices, and the donee was his daughter, Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices. The complainants claimed the donation was fraudulent and that the notary public failed to comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Guzman violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the deed without properly ascertaining the identities of the parties who appeared before him.

The Notarial Rules on Identity Verification

Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not in the notary's presence at the time of notarization, and if the affiant is not personally known to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.

Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. Examples include a passport, driver's license, Professional Regulation Commission ID, NBI clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, GSIS e-card, SSS card, or PhilHealth card. Alternatively, the notary may rely on the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the transaction who is personally known to the notary.

A notary may dispense with these requirements only if the signatory is personally known to him or her. "Personally known" means the notary has personal knowledge of the signatory's circumstances independent of any representations made immediately before or during the notarization.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Guzman guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court noted that the acknowledgment portion of the deed did not state that the parties were personally known to the notary. It merely stated that the parties appeared before him and were "known to me"—a phrase the Court found insufficient to excuse the presentation of competent evidence of identity.

The document itself revealed the defect: under Jose's name, only his Tax Identification Number appeared, while under the names of Lolita and Cecile, there were no entries at all. The Court rejected the lawyer's defense that he had required the parties to present government-issued identification cards, noting that if he had truly done so, he could have easily reflected this in the acknowledgment portion of the document.

The Court also dismissed the belated submission of Jose's identification cards through an affidavit executed years after the notarization. This was a mere afterthought and did not cure the defective notarization. Worse, no identification cards were ever presented for Lolita and Cecile.

Prior Violations and Penalty

The Court took note that this was not the first time Atty. Guzman had been found liable for similar infractions. In two prior cases involving the same parties, the Court had already suspended him from the practice of law for six months each time and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Given that this was his third violation, the Court imposed a more severe penalty. Atty. Guzman was suspended from the practice of law for two years and declared perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court emphasized that through his repeated acts, notarization had become an empty, meaningless, and routine act that eroded public confidence in the notarial system.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization carries serious legal consequences. A notarial document is admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, so notaries must observe the highest standards of care.
• Competent evidence of identity is mandatory. Unless the notary personally knows the signatory, he or she must require at least one current government-issued ID bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.
• Document the verification. Notaries should clearly state in the acknowledgment portion that the parties presented competent evidence of identity or that they are personally known to the notary.
• Repeated violations lead to severe penalties. A lawyer who repeatedly fails to comply with notarial rules risks suspension from practice and perpetual disqualification from notarial commissions.
• Belated compliance does not cure defects. Presenting identification documents years after the notarization will not excuse a notary's failure to comply with the rules at the time of the act.

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