Unauthorized Notarization by Public Officials: The Limits of Authority in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has clarified the limits of authority for public officials who perform notarial acts. In Jabinal v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 232094, July 24, 2019), the Court ruled that a government lawyer who notarized documents without prior written authority from her agency could be prosecuted for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The ruling serves as a reminder that notarization is a form of legal practice that requires explicit permission when done by government employees.

The Case: A Legal Officer's Notarial Acts

Atty. Parina R. Jabinal was a Division Manager at the Legal Services Department of the National Housing Authority (NHA). In 2008, she notarized two documents: a Deed of Sale between the NHA and private parties, and a Deed of Assignment among private parties. She received P30,000.00 for both notarizations.

The Office of the Ombudsman filed charges against Jabinal for violating Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, which prohibits public officials from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized. The Ombudsman found that Jabinal had no written authority from the NHA in 2008 and was not a commissioned notary public for Quezon City that year.

The Issue: What Constitutes Unauthorized Practice?

Jabinal argued that her notarial acts were part of her official duties at the NHA, not private practice. She also claimed good faith, saying she believed she was still a commissioned notary public based on her prior commissions from 2004 to 2010.

The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. The Court held that notarization falls within the ambit of the "practice of law." Since Jabinal was a government employee, she needed prior written permission from the head of her agency to engage in notarial practice. The Court noted that Memorandum Circular No. 17 requires written permission from the department head for government employees to engage in private practice.

The Ruling: Probable Cause Exists

The Court found that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against Jabinal. The evidence showed that she notarized documents in August and September 2008, but her notarial commission for 2009-2010 was only issued in March 2009. Her petition for commission, dated February 9, 2008, was actually filed only on February 10, 2009.

The Court emphasized that probable cause only requires a well-founded belief that a crime was committed. Jabinal's claim of good faith was a matter of defense that could be raised during trial, not during preliminary investigation. The Court cited Abella v. Atty. Cruzabra (606 Phil. 200 [2009]), where a Deputy Register of Deeds who notarized thousands of documents without authority was found guilty of unauthorized notarial practice.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is practice of law. Government lawyers who notarize documents must secure prior written authority from their agency head, even if the documents relate to official transactions.
• Written permission is mandatory. Verbal approval or implied authority is insufficient. The permission must be in writing and issued by the proper department head.
• Good faith is a trial defense. Claims of honest mistake or inadvertence do not negate probable cause during preliminary investigation; these are matters for full trial.
• Check commission status carefully. A notary public must ensure their commission is current and valid before notarizing any document. Acting without a commission exposes one to administrative and criminal liability.
• Ombudsman findings are highly respected. Courts generally defer to the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion.

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