Unauthorized Notarization: When a Lawyer’s Integrity Is Put on the Line

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere routine act. When a lawyer affixes a signature and seal to a document, that lawyer converts a private writing into a public instrument, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Because of this, the duties of a notary public are impressed with public interest, and any violation of those duties carries serious consequences.

In Tenoso v. Echanez (A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013), the Court dealt with a lawyer who engaged in notarial practice without a commission. The case serves as a clear reminder that a lawyer’s conduct, both in and out of court, must always meet the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required by the legal profession.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, Efigenia M. Tenoso, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez. She alleged that the respondent practiced as a notary public in Cordon, Isabela, without having been properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, which had jurisdiction over the municipality.

To support her complaint, Tenoso attached several documents:

• Two lists of commissioned notaries public for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008, signed by the RTC Executive Judge. The respondent’s name did not appear on either list.
• Copies of ten documents that appeared to have been notarized by the respondent during those years.
• A certification from the RTC judge stating that a joint affidavit notarized by the respondent in 2008 could not be authenticated because no notarial commission had been issued to him at the time.

In his answer, the respondent denied the allegations. He claimed he had never notarized any document or pleading, dismissed the complaint as “preposterous, full of lies, and politically motivated,” and suggested that the documents were “tampered and adulterated” or that his signature had been forged. However, he presented no evidence to support these claims. He also failed to attend the mandatory conference and did not file a position paper.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission, in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty. It noted that the complainant had presented clear evidence—the lists of commissioned notaries, the notarized documents, and the judge’s certification—showing that the respondent had notarized documents without authority.

The respondent, on the other hand, offered only bare denials and unsupported speculation. Under the Rules of Court, the burden of proof lies with the party who alleges a fact. Since the respondent failed to present evidence to rebut the complainant’s allegations, the Court sustained the finding against him.

The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to clients but also to the courts, the profession, and the nation. Lawyers are officers of the court and are bound to maintain high standards of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

By misrepresenting himself as a notary public, the respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, and the public to the dangers of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. His conduct constituted deceit and falsehood, falling short of the standards required of lawyers.

The Court suspended Atty. Echanez from the practice of law for two years and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. It also warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would merit a more severe sanction.

Why Notarization Matters

The Court reiterated that notarization is not a meaningless act. It converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the need for preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. This is why the duties of a notary public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

When a lawyer notarizes without a commission, the lawyer undermines the integrity of the notarial process and the legal system as a whole. The public relies on notarization as a safeguard against fraud and forgery. A lawyer who abuses this trust betrays the profession and the public.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize without a commission. A lawyer must have a valid notarial commission from the proper court before performing any notarial act. Notarizing without one is a serious violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Keep your commission current and within jurisdiction. A commission is territorial. A lawyer can only notarize within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the commission. Check the expiration date and renew on time.
• Burden of proof is on the respondent. In administrative cases, a lawyer who denies allegations must present evidence. Bare denials and unsupported claims of forgery will not suffice.
• Notarization carries public trust. Treat every notarial act with care. A notarized document becomes a public instrument, and the public relies on the notary’s integrity.
• Consequences are severe. Violations can lead to suspension from the practice of law, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary, and even disbarment for repeated offenses.

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