Notarial Practice Consequences: Improper Notarization in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act. It is a function invested with public interest, converting private documents into public ones and making them admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. When a notary public fails to observe the basic requirements of notarial practice, the consequences are severe—not just for the notary, but for public confidence in the integrity of legal documents.

In Brozas-Garri v. Reago (A.C. No. 11428, November 13, 2023), the Court dealt with a lawyer who notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) bearing a forged signature, despite the supposed signatory being out of the country at the time. The case serves as a clear reminder of the strict duties imposed on notaries public and the penalties for violating them.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Maria Brozas-Garri charged Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago with breach of duty and violation of his Lawyer's Oath. The complaint alleged that Atty. Reago prepared and notarized an SPA authorizing his wife to enter into a lease contract involving Brozas-Garri's house and lot. The problem: the SPA bore Brozas-Garri's forged signature, and she was in the United States at the time of the alleged signing and notarization.

Atty. Reago did not deny the allegation. Instead, he argued that the SPA was unnecessary and superfluous, since the lease contract was for less than one year. He also claimed that Brozas-Garri had ratified the lease by accepting rental payments.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Reago should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document without the signatory's personal presence and with a forged signature.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and found Atty. Reago guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon II, Sections 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

The Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty act. It is invested with substantive public interest because it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgment executed by a notary public.

The Requirements of Notarial Practice

Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public may perform a notarial act only if the person involved as signatory is:

• In the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization; and
• Personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity.

The Court emphasized that it is the notary's duty to demand that the document be signed in his or her presence. It is "sacrosanct" that a notary should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her.

Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A breach of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath. The Court cited Canon II, Sections 1 and 11 of the CPRA, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and from making false representations or statements.

In this case, Atty. Reago notarized the SPA even though the signatory did not personally appear before him. He allowed himself to be an "agent of untruthfulness" by forging the signature and notarizing the document without Brozas-Garri's presence.

The Penalties Imposed

The Court imposed the following penalties on Atty. Reago:

• Suspension from the practice of law for two years;
• Immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if still subsisting; and
• Prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

The Court noted that the violation was aggravated by the fact that Atty. Reago forged the signature, making the penalty more severe than in similar cases.

Practical Takeaways

• Personal appearance is mandatory. A notary public cannot notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before him or her. This requirement cannot be waived or dispensed with.
• Forgery is a grave offense. Notarizing a document with a forged signature is not just a violation of notarial rules—it is a violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• The "superfluous document" defense fails. A lawyer cannot escape liability by arguing that the notarized document was unnecessary. If a document is notarized, it must comply with all requirements.
• Acceptance of benefits does not cure the violation. Even if the complainant received rental payments under the lease, this does not excuse the lawyer's improper notarization.
• Penalties are severe. Violations can result in suspension from practice, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

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