Notarial Misconduct Lawyers Must Adhere to Geographic Limits of Notarial Commissions

The Supreme Court has long treated notarization as more than a routine ministerial act. It is a function invested with public interest, and lawyers who abuse it face serious consequences. In Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Renato L. Gonzales (A.C. No. 6634, August 23, 2007), the Court disciplined a lawyer for notarizing deeds in Pasig City when his notarial commission covered only Quezon City. The case reminds lawyers that a notary public's authority is strictly territorial, and violations carry penalties beyond mere revocation of a commission.

Facts of the Case

Complainant Tan Tiong Bio purchased parcels of land at Manila Southwoods Residential Estates in Carmona, Cavite from Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI). In one transaction, he signed Deed of Sale No. 1108 covering a lot in the development. The deed was notarized by Atty. Renato L. Gonzales, who was then employed as corporate counsel for FEPI and held a notarial commission for Quezon City from 1996 to 2001.

The deed was notarized in Pasig City, at the Renaissance Towers along Meralco Avenue, where FEPI maintained its office. The complainant later filed a disbarment complaint, alleging that the respondent notarized the deed without requiring the personal appearance of the signatories. He relied on a counter-affidavit by Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc, the vendor's authorized representative, who stated she had never met the complainant and that they signed the deed at different times and places.

The Issues

Two principal issues were raised: first, whether the respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the parties; and second, whether he committed misconduct by notarizing the deed outside the territorial limits of his notarial commission.

The Ruling

The Court dismissed the first charge for lack of convincing evidence. A notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity. The respondent's notarial certification stated that the parties personally appeared before him, and the complainant failed to present clear and convincing proof to overturn this presumption. The Court noted that the Notarial Law does not require the parties to appear before the notary at the same time. Bondoc's statement that she had not met the buyers did not necessarily prove that the parties failed to appear before the notary at different times.

The second charge, however, was proven. The respondent admitted that his commission covered only Quezon City, yet he notarized Deed 1108 in Pasig City. Worse, he admitted to notarizing hundreds of documents in Pasig City, where he held office, throughout the period his commission was limited to Quezon City.

The Court held that notarizing documents outside the area covered by one's commission constitutes malpractice of law and falsification. By making it appear that he was duly authorized to notarize in Pasig City when he was not, the respondent engaged in deliberate falsehood, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court also found a violation of Canon 7, which requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The Court rejected the respondent's defense of laches, noting that administrative complaints against members of the bar do not prescribe and that the Court's disciplinary authority cannot be defeated by delay or by the complainant's motives.

Penalty Imposed

While the complainant sought disbarment, the Court found the penalty excessive. Guided by Zoreta v. Simpliciano, where a lawyer was suspended for two years and permanently disqualified from notarial practice for notarizing documents after his commission had expired, the Court imposed a similar penalty. The respondent was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public and suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Practical Takeaways

• A notary public's authority is strictly limited to the territorial jurisdiction stated in the commission. Notarizing outside that area is a serious violation.
• Notarization is not a ministerial routine; it converts a private document into a public document and carries substantive legal effects.
• The presumption of regularity protects notarized documents. A party alleging irregular notarization must present clear and convincing evidence.
• The Notarial Law does not require all parties to appear before the notary simultaneously; appearing at different times is permissible.
• Administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe, and defenses like laches or complainant's ill motive will not defeat disciplinary proceedings.

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