Notarial Misconduct: When Lawyers Fail Their Oath as Notaries Public

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but one invested with substantive public interest. When a lawyer who is also a notary public fails to observe the basic requirements of notarial practice, the consequences can be severe—including suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. In De Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit (A.C. No. 6470, July 8, 2014), the Court demonstrated its firm stance against lawyers who treat their notarial duties lightly.

The Case Against Atty. Sanchez-Malit

The complainant, Mercedita De Jesus, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit for grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractice, and unworthiness to be an officer of the Court. The complaint arose from several documents that the respondent had drafted and notarized, which later caused legal and financial problems for the complainant.

Among the most serious allegations was that the respondent had notarized a Real Estate Mortgage that falsely named the complainant as the "absolute and registered owner" of a public market stall, when the respondent—being a consultant of the local government unit—knew that the stall was government-owned. This led to a perjury charge against the complainant.

The complainant also presented evidence showing that the respondent had notarized numerous other documents that were unsigned or lacked the signatures of the parties involved. These included Special Powers of Attorney, deeds of sale, affidavits, a lease contract, and even a Consent to Adoption.

The Respondent's Defenses

The respondent offered various explanations. She claimed that the mortgage contract was hastily prepared from a computer template and that the phrase "absolute and registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. She argued that the complainant, as an experienced realty broker, needed no advice on the consequences of her transactions. She also contended that the additional documents submitted by the complainant were inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's procedural objections. Citing Tolentino v. Mendoza, the Court noted that neither the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice nor the Rules of Evidence provide for the exclusion of documents merely because they were obtained in violation of notarial rules. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to government action, not to private individuals.

On the merits, the Court found that the respondent committed misconduct and grievously violated her oath as a notary public. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements of notarial duties.

The Court found that the respondent fully knew the complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall, yet she proceeded to notarize the document. This constituted a breach of Canon 1 and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent's explanation regarding the unsigned lease agreement was deemed "incredulous"—if her file copy bore the lessees' signatures, she could have simply provided a certified photocopy.

More tellingly, the records showed that from 2002 to 2004, the respondent had notarized 22 documents that were either unsigned or lacking the signatures of the parties. Each of these documents was a potential ground for disciplinary action, as it is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in his or her presence.

The Penalty

The Court found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as her oath as a notary public. She was suspended from the practice of law for one year, her notarial commission was immediately revoked, and she was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a solemn act. A notary public must personally require the parties to sign documents in their presence. Notarizing unsigned documents is a serious violation of notarial duties.

• Personal knowledge matters. A notary who knows that a document contains false statements must refuse to notarize it. Proceeding despite such knowledge undermines the integrity of the notarial process.

• Carelessness has consequences. Even inadvertent errors in notarized documents—such as leaving unedited template language—can lead to disciplinary action when they cause harm.

• The penalty can be severe. Violations of notarial duties can result in suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from future commissions.

• Evidence rules in administrative cases are liberal. Documents obtained in violation of notarial rules may still be admissible in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.

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