Notarizing Without a Commission: When a Lawyer’s Mistake Becomes Malpractice

The act of notarizing a document carries a weight that many laypeople may not fully appreciate. It transforms a private agreement into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Because of this, the Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere routine act—it is a duty invested with substantive public interest. In Uy v. Saño (A.C. No. 6505, September 11, 2008), the Court reminded lawyers that performing notarial acts without a valid commission is a serious breach of professional responsibility, even when the lawyer claims it was an honest mistake.

The Case: A Lawyer Who Notarized Without Authority

Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño served as counsel for an intervenor in a civil case involving the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. During the proceedings, he presented a Deed of Absolute Sale that he had notarized on December 7, 2001. The problem? The Clerk of Court later confirmed that Saño had no notarial commission for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.

Saño admitted he lacked a commission during that period but explained that he had applied for renewal through an office aide. The aide told him the application was approved, so he resumed his notarial work. He later discovered the commission was never issued, and he could not locate the aide to verify what had happened.

The Issue: Is Ignorance a Defense?

The central question was whether a lawyer who notarizes documents without a commission—believing in good faith that the commission was renewed—can escape administrative liability. The Court answered with a firm no.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege burdened with conditions. Lawyers must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing. When a lawyer performs notarial acts without authority, the Court has consistently treated this as malpractice and, in some cases, even as the crime of falsification of public documents.

The Ruling: Six Months Suspension

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, however, increased this to one year and added a two-year disqualification from reappointment as a notary public. The Supreme Court found the Board's penalty too harsh and reinstated the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.

The Court reasoned that while Saño's conduct was reprehensible, the circumstances differed from a prior case. In Buensuceso v. Barrera, a lawyer was suspended for one year because more than twelve years had passed, making it likely that many documents were unlawfully notarized. In Saño's case, only two years had elapsed, so a six-month suspension was sufficient. The Court noted that the specific docket number for Buensuceso v. Barrera is not available in the ASG law library, but the case is cited in the decision itself.

The Court also revoked Saño's present notarial commission, if any, and disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for two years.

Why the Court Was Strict

The Court rejected Saño's defense that he relied on an office aide. At the very least, the Court said, Saño should have demanded documentary proof of the commission's approval or verified the aide's claim with the Executive Judge's office. Shifting blame to a staff member is not the kind of diligence required of a lawyer.

The ruling also cited Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By making it appear he was duly commissioned when he was not, Saño indulged in deliberate falsehood, violating his lawyer's oath.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a public trust. A notarial commission is not a formality. Lawyers must personally ensure their commission is current before performing any notarial act.
• Ignorance is no excuse. Claiming a mistake or blaming a secretary or aide will not shield a lawyer from disciplinary action. The Court expects lawyers to verify their authority.
• The consequences are serious. Unauthorized notarization can lead to suspension, revocation of a notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, or even disbarment.
• Check before you sign. Lawyers should confirm their commission's validity with the Executive Judge's office and keep copies of their commission and renewal documents.
• The purpose of discipline is protection. Administrative sanctions exist not to punish lawyers but to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.

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