Upholding Ethical Standards: Notarial Misconduct and Falsification of Documents

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but a solemn function impressed with public interest. When a lawyer who is also a notary public makes false declarations in a public document, the Court will not hesitate to impose disciplinary sanctions. In Mondejar v. Rubia (A.C. Nos. 5907 and 5942, July 21, 2006), the Court suspended a lawyer for one month for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility after she antedated a joint venture agreement and made an untruthful acknowledgment in her notarial register.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from two administrative complaints filed against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia. The first involved a Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement between Marilyn Carido and her Japanese common-law husband, Yoshimi Nakayama. The document was supposedly acknowledged before Atty. Rubia on January 9, 2001, but it appeared in her notarial register under the "Series of 2002" and bore her 2002 Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number.

The complainant, Elsa Mondejar, had filed a criminal charge against Carido for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law, claiming that Carido was merely a dummy owner of a business actually owned by Nakayama. Carido attached the antedated joint venture agreement to her Counter-Affidavit to show she owned the business, with Nakayama merely providing capital.

The second complaint concerned a Deed of Absolute Sale that Atty. Rubia notarized, allegedly forging the signature of the vendor who had been residing in the United States since 1992. The investigating commissioner recommended dismissal of this second complaint for lack of sufficient evidence.

The Issue Before the Court

The central issue was whether Atty. Rubia should be administratively liable for making false declarations in a public document. The respondent argued that the complainant lacked legal standing to question the documents since she was neither a party nor a witness to them, and that the complainant had died during the proceedings.

The Court rejected this argument, citing In re Almacen: disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis—neither purely civil nor purely criminal. They are investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers, with public interest as the primary objective. The complainant's husband could validly pursue the cases on the basis of documentary evidence already submitted.

The Court's Ruling on Notarial Misconduct

The Court found clear evidence of misconduct. The Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement was dated January 9, 2001, yet it was entered in Atty. Rubia's notarial register as Document No. 5707, Series of 2002, and bore her 2002 PTR number. Meanwhile, a Deed of Absolute Sale she notarized in March 2001 indicated her 2001 PTR number was different.

The investigating commissioner noted the illogical sequence: the Counter-Affidavit notarized on November 6, 2002 was entered as Document No. 2791, Series of 2002, while the supposedly earlier document was entered as Document No. 5707—a higher number. This inconsistency showed the document was antedated.

Atty. Rubia's explanation—that she made a "revised agreement" in 2002 while retaining the original January 2001 date, and that the erroneous entries were due to her workload—did not impress the Court. The Court found her explanation betrayed her guilt. The document was clearly antedated in an attempt to exculpate Carido from the Anti-Dummy Law charge.

The Duty of a Notary Public

The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties of their office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

A notary's solemn oath requires obedience to the laws, doing no falsehood, and consenting to no falsehood. By attesting that the parties appeared before her on January 9, 2001, when evidence clearly showed otherwise, Atty. Rubia made an untruthful declaration in a public document.

The Court also noted that a notary's failure to submit notarized documents to the proper clerk of court within the prescribed period is itself a ground for revocation of notarial commission under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a public trust. A notary public's function is not merely clerical; it carries the weight of public faith in the authenticity of documents. Any false statement in a notarized document undermines this trust.

• Antedating documents is professional misconduct. Backdating a document to make it appear executed earlier than it actually was, especially to defeat a legal claim, violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

• Notarial records must be accurate. The notarial register, PTR numbers, and document series must reflect the true date and circumstances of notarization. Discrepancies in these records are evidence of wrongdoing.

• Administrative cases may proceed despite the complainant's death. Disciplinary proceedings are not ordinary civil actions; they are investigations into a lawyer's fitness to practice. The Court may act on the basis of documentary evidence even if the original complainant has passed away.

• A "busy schedule" is no excuse. Forgetting to correct errors in notarial documents, or blaming workload, will not excuse a notary's failure to comply with legal duties.

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