Notarial Negligence: Lawyers Must Secure Seals and Prevent Unauthorized Use of Notarial Books

The Supreme Court has long held that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. This presumption of regularity, however, carries with it a heavy responsibility: notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. In Castelo v. Ching (A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017), the Court clarified that this duty extends beyond merely signing documents—it includes safeguarding notarial equipment and ensuring that unauthorized persons cannot use them.

The Case: A Deed Notarized After Death

The case arose from an ejectment suit filed against the Castelo heirs by the Delens, who claimed ownership of a house and lot in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Upon verifying the title with the Registry of Deeds, the heirs discovered that their parents' title had been cancelled based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 2010. The Deed was purportedly executed by their parents and the Delens, and was notarized by Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching.

The critical detail: the heirs' mother, Perzidia S. Castelo, had died on May 4, 2009—almost a year before the Deed was supposedly executed. The acknowledgment page also showed that only community tax certificates had been presented to the notary, not valid government-issued identification cards as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Notary's Defense: Denial and Allegations of Forgery

Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed, claiming he did not know the parties and that his signature had been forged. He presented specimen signatures to prove the alleged forgery. However, when the IBP issued a subpoena for his notarial books, the records revealed that the Deed was indeed recorded therein as a faithful machine copy of the original.

Atty. Ching failed to attend the subsequent mandatory conference and did not submit his position paper. The IBP found him grossly negligent and recommended cancellation of his notarial commission and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned again.

The Ruling: Gross Negligence in Safeguarding Notarial Instruments

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings. While the Court acknowledged that there might be reasons to give Atty. Ching the benefit of the doubt as to who actually signed the Deed, it emphasized that he still failed in his duty to ensure that only documents he had personally signed and sealed—after satisfying himself of their completeness and the identities of the signatories—would be included in his notarial register.

The Court held that Atty. Ching failed to properly store and secure his notarial equipment, allowing other people to notarize documents by forging his signature and affixing his notarial seal, and recording such documents in his notarial books without his knowledge and consent. This constituted gross negligence.

The Standard of Care for Notaries Public

The Court reiterated that gross negligence on the part of a notary public encompasses the failure to observe any of the requirements of a notarial act under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which would result in putting a person's rights to liberty or property in jeopardy. This includes:

• Failing to require the presence of signatories to a notarial instrument
• Failing to ascertain their identities through competent evidence
• Allowing, knowingly or unknowingly, people other than the notary himself to sign notarial documents, affix the notarial seal, and make entries in the notarial register

The Court cited Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo (489 Phil. 257 [2005]), where a notary was found negligent for allowing office secretaries to make entries in his notarial registry—a task that should be done and kept by him alone.

Practical Takeaways

• Secure notarial equipment. Notaries must properly store their notarial seals, books, and other instruments to prevent unauthorized use. Failure to do so constitutes gross negligence, even if the notary did not personally sign the document in question.

• Personal verification is non-negotiable. A notary must personally require the presence of all signatories and ascertain their identities through competent evidence of identity—not merely community tax certificates.

• Notarial books are the notary's sole responsibility. Entries in the notarial register must be made by the notary personally. Delegating this task to staff, even unknowingly, can result in severe administrative penalties.

• The consequences are severe. Gross negligence in notarial practice can result in revocation of the notarial commission, perpetual disqualification from being commissioned again, and suspension from the practice of law.

• Administrative liability is separate from criminal or civil cases. The Court noted that whether the Deed was actually forged is an issue for civil or criminal proceedings; the administrative case concerns only the notary's professional conduct.

A Reminder for All Notaries

This case serves as a reminder that the duty to public service is the primary consideration in the practice of law. For notaries public, this duty is even more critical—they must preserve public trust and confidence in their office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the integrity of every document that comes under their notarial seal.

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