Notarization Is Not Routine: Lessons from a Lawyer’s Suspension for Notarial Misconduct

Notarization carries a heavy public trust. It is not a mere formality or a routine signing of papers. When a notary public affixes a signature and seal to a document, that document is transformed from a private agreement into a public instrument, admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Because of this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that notaries must perform their duties with the utmost care. Failure to do so does not just harm the parties involved—it erodes public confidence in the entire legal system.

In Sanchez v. Atty. Inton (A.C. No. 12455, November 5, 2019), the Court dealt with a lawyer who violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in two serious ways: he notarized a document without properly verifying the identity of the person who signed it, and he allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts in his place. The case offers clear lessons for lawyers and the public alike.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, Ledesma D. Sanchez, alleged that on September 15, 2016, respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton notarized a document called a Kontrata ng Kasunduan which she supposedly signed at his office in Cabanatuan City. Sanchez denied ever appearing before the notary on that date, saying she was at her store in Quezon City at the time.

On February 10, 2017, Sanchez presented another document—an Acknowledgment of Legal Obligation With Promissory Note—for notarization. To her surprise, the notary's secretaries did not ask about the whereabouts of the signatory, immediately collected payment, and affixed the notary's signature on the document themselves.

In his defense, Atty. Inton admitted notarizing the first document but claimed Sanchez had appeared before him. As for the second document, he denied notarizing it, saying it did not appear in his notarial book.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Inton should be held administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Inton guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for two years, prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and his existing notarial commission, if any, was revoked.

The Court identified two specific violations.

First, failure to verify identity. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present and either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The rules define competent evidence of identity as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath of a credible witness. The exact text of these provisions is not reproduced in the library consulted for this article, but the requirements as applied in this case are clear.

In this case, the notarized document itself contained no mention of any competent evidence of identity for either party. The jurat—the portion of the notarial certificate stating the facts attested to—was incomplete. Even if Sanchez did appear before Atty. Inton, the document failed to reflect the required verification. The Court noted that the physical presence of the affiant ensures the notary can determine whether the signature was voluntarily affixed, while the submission of identification ensures the affiant is who he or she claims to be.

Second, allowing secretaries to perform notarial acts. A notarial commission is personal to each lawyer. The notary public must personally administer the notarial acts the law authorizes. No other person should perform them. In this case, Atty. Inton's secretaries notarized a document and affixed his signature without his personal involvement. As their employer, Atty. Inton was responsible for their acts and for implementing measures to prevent such abuse. His failure to do so constituted negligence in the performance of his notarial duties.

The Court also emphasized that a breach of the Notarial Rules constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. An erring lawyer who is remiss in notarial functions violates the oath to uphold the law and engages in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, contrary to Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. The text of these provisions is cited in the decision itself.

Why This Matters

Notarization is invested with substantive public interest. A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. When a notary fails to observe the basic requirements, the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents is undermined. The Court has consistently held that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to and must never take part in illegal transactions.

The penalty in this case was heavier than usual because Atty. Inton had been previously reprimanded for a similar infraction. This underscores that repeat offenses are dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is not a routine act. It converts a private document into a public one, and the notary's duties are imbued with public interest.
• Verify identity every time. A notary must require competent evidence of identity—such as a current government-issued ID with photo and signature—and must indicate this in the document.
• The notary must act personally. Notarial acts cannot be delegated to secretaries, clerks, or any other person. The notary must personally administer the oath and sign the certificate.
• Incomplete certificates are prohibited. A notary must not affix a signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.
• Violations carry serious consequences. Breaching the Notarial Rules can lead to suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from future commissions.

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