Notarizing Without a Commission: Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that notarization is a privilege burdened with public interest, not a routine clerical act. In Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015), the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for two years and permanently barred him from being commissioned as a notary public for performing notarial acts without a valid commission and outside his territorial jurisdiction. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to lawyers that unauthorized notarization is a serious ethical breach with severe consequences.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from three separate complaints against different lawyers. The first involved Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr., who was accused by commissioned notaries public in Lingayen, Pangasinan, of maintaining a notarial office and performing notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. Evidence showed that Atty. Siapno had previously been commissioned as a notary public for Lingayen from 2003 to 2006, but his commission was cancelled on June 8, 2006, and never renewed. Despite this, he continued notarizing documents, including a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Acknowledgment of Debt, in areas outside his former commission's jurisdiction.

The second complaint alleged that Atty. Pedro L. Santos notarized an affidavit of loss in Manila without being commissioned in that city, resulting in the document's denial for authentication. The third complaint reported a certain "Atty. Evelyn" who was notarizing and signing documents on behalf of several lawyers without proper authority.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Siapno violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by performing notarial acts without a valid commission and outside his territorial jurisdiction.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against Atty. Siapno, finding that he indeed violated the rules. Citing Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Court emphasized that a person commissioned as a notary public may only perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and for a period of two years, unless earlier revoked. Since Atty. Siapno's commission had been cancelled and never renewed, he had no authority to notarize any document.

The Court stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Because notarial documents are entitled to full faith and credit, notaries must observe the basic requirements of their duties with utmost care.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the law but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and require them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The Court found the recommended penalty of a P50,000 fine insufficient. Citing prior cases where lawyers were suspended for similar offenses, the Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and permanently barred Atty. Siapno from being commissioned as a notary public. The complaints against Atty. Santos and "Atty. Evelyn" were ordered re-docketed as separate administrative cases for formal investigation.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a public trust. Lawyers must never treat notarization as a routine act. It carries substantive public interest, and only those with a valid commission may perform it.
• A commission has limits. A notary public may only act within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and only during the term of the commission. Acting beyond these limits is a violation.
• Expired or cancelled commissions mean no authority. Continuing to notarize after a commission expires or is cancelled is a serious ethical violation that warrants suspension and permanent disqualification from notarial practice.
• Delegating notarial duties is prohibited. Notarial authority is personal and cannot be delegated to secretaries or other staff.
• Consequences are severe. Lawyers who violate notarial rules face suspension from the practice of law, permanent disqualification from notarial commissions, and damage to their professional reputation.

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