Notarization Without Signatories Present: Supreme Court Disciplines Lawyer in Montinola Case

The Supreme Court has long treated notarization as an act "impressed with substantive public interest." When a lawyer notarizes a document without the signatories physically present, the integrity of the entire notarial system is called into question. In Montinola v. Rubrico (A.C. No. 10904, July 14, 2021), the Court suspended a notary public for three months, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from being commissioned for two years—a clear reminder that accommodating fellow lawyers is never an excuse for cutting corners.

The Facts of the Case

Felix C. Montinola III, one of the surviving heirs of the late Felix Montinola, Sr., received a demand letter from Atty. Filomeno B. Tan, Jr., acting for the other heirs. The letter asked him to either vacate the lot where his house stood or buy out his co-heirs' shares. Attached to the letter was a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, notarized on February 5, 2014, by Atty. Juan T. Rubrico.

The complainant alleged the deed was void because not all parties in interest had signed. When he asked Atty. Rubrico to certify whether he had actually notarized the deed, the notary initially claimed his signature had been forged by a former secretary. Two days later, however, Atty. Rubrico retracted that statement and admitted he had notarized the deed without the presence of all signatories—as an accommodation to Atty. Daisy D. Montinola, a fellow lawyer.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Rubrico violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the deed without the signatories personally appearing before him. A related issue was whether Atty. Montinola, who had requested the accommodation, and Atty. Tan, who merely sent the demand letter, should also face disciplinary action.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and ruled that Atty. Rubrico was administratively liable. The Court cited Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity.

The Court also referenced Section 1 of Act No. 2103, which requires the notary to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it.

The Court emphasized that the physical presence of signatories is necessary so the notary can verify the genuineness of signatures and ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed. Trusting a fellow lawyer's assurance that a document was "duly authenticated" did not justify the violation.

As for Atty. Montinola, the Court found no malice but still issued a stern warning. As a member of the Bar, she was expected to know that a deed cannot be notarized without all signatories present. Her good faith did not exculpate her from responsibility. The complaint against Atty. Tan was dismissed for lack of merit, as writing a demand letter did not violate notarial rules.

Why This Case Matters

This case reinforces that notarization is not a mere formality. A notarized document becomes a public document, admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. When a notary fails to observe the basic requirements, public confidence in notarized documents is undermined.

The Court cited prior cases, including Angeles v. Atty. Ibañez (596 Phil. 99 [2009]), Gonzales v. Atty. Bañares (833 Phil. 578 [2018]), and Spouses Zialcita v. Atty. Latras (A.C. No. 7169, March 11, 2019), all of which imposed similar penalties for notarizing documents without the signatories present.

Practical Takeaways

• Notaries must require personal appearance. A notary public cannot notarize a document based on a secretary's assurance or a fellow lawyer's word. The signatories must appear personally, and their identities must be verified.
• Accommodation is not a defense. Trusting a colleague or doing a favor does not excuse non-compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Lawyers who request improper notarization face consequences. Even without malice, a lawyer who facilitates or requests the notarization of a document without all signatories present may be sternly warned or disciplined.
• Notarization carries public interest. A notarized document is presumed authentic. Careless notarization undermines the integrity of public documents and the legal system.
• Demand letters are not notarial violations. A lawyer who merely writes and sends a demand letter, without involvement in the improper notarization, is not liable under notarial rules.

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