Lawyer Suspended for Notarizing Without Commission and Dishonoring Financial Obligations

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers that notarization is never a routine or meaningless act. In Japitana v. Parado (A.C. No. 10859, January 26, 2016), the Court suspended a lawyer for two years and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for performing notarial acts without authority, lying under oath about his commission, and failing to verify the identity of document signatories. The case underscores that a lawyer's duty of honesty extends to every aspect of practice, including notarial work.

The Facts of the Case

In June 2006, Atty. Sylvester C. Parado notarized a Real Estate Mortgage between a lending company and two mortgagors, as well as an Affidavit of Conformity purportedly signed by several family members. The mortgage covered a parcel of land where the family home stood.

The complainant, Maria Fatima Japitana, alleged that the signatures on these documents were forgeries. She also claimed that Atty. Parado had no notarial commission for 2006, a fact later confirmed by a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu.

When the case reached the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Atty. Parado failed to appear at the mandatory conferences and did not file his position paper. He had, however, previously testified in court that he possessed a notarial commission effective until 2008—a claim directly contradicted by the official certification.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Parado should be held administratively liable for performing notarial acts without authority, notarizing documents without sufficient identification from the signatories, and making false statements about his notarial commission.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Parado liable on all counts and increased the penalty recommended by the IBP.

First, the Court ruled that Atty. Parado had no valid notarial commission when he notarized the documents in 2006. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only persons commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts. Acting without a commission violates both the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and require lawyers to uphold the integrity of the profession.

Second, the Court found Atty. Parado dishonest for testifying that he had a commission valid until 2008 when records showed he had none for 2006. He failed to refute the certification because he ignored the IBP's notices and never submitted his position paper.

Third, the Court noted that even if Atty. Parado had a valid commission, he still violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. He notarized documents based solely on the signatories' Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a notary to verify the identity of a signatory who is not personally known to the notary through a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or through the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. A CTC does not qualify as such competent evidence of identity. The exact text of the relevant provisions is not available in the ASG law library, but the Supreme Court's ruling in this case clearly applied this standard.

The Court emphasized that notarization 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.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize without a commission. Performing notarial acts without authority is a serious ethical violation that can lead to suspension and permanent disqualification from notarial practice.
• Verify identity properly. A notary must require competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID with photo and signature, unless the signatory is personally known to the notary. Community Tax Certificates are not sufficient.
• Honesty is non-negotiable. Making false statements—whether in court, to the IBP, or in any official capacity—violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and invites severe disciplinary action.
• Cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. Ignoring notices from the IBP or failing to submit required pleadings deprives a lawyer of the chance to refute allegations and can aggravate the penalty.
• Notarization carries public trust. Treat every notarial act as a matter of substantive public interest, not a mere administrative formality.

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