Notarizing Documents: The Attorney's Duty to Verify Identity and Authenticity

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is a solemn act that invests a document with public faith and evidentiary weight. When a lawyer notarizes a document without verifying the identity of the person appearing before him, the lawyer undermines public confidence in the legal profession. In Social Security Commission v. Atty. Napoleon Corral (A.C. No. 6249, October 14, 2004), the Court addressed this exact issue, reminding lawyers that the duty to ensure authenticity in notarizing documents is sacrosanct.

The Case: Notarizing Complaints for Dead Men

The case began when the Social Security Commission (SSC) filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Napoleon Corral. The Commission alleged that Corral had prepared, notarized, and filed complaints with the SSC's Regional Office in Bacolod City on behalf of persons who had long been dead.

The first spurious complaint was filed on April 18, 1986, on behalf of one Hermogenes Bareno. The complaint appeared to have been verified by Bareno with a thumbmark and acknowledged before Corral on April 16, 1986. Investigation later revealed that Bareno had died two years earlier.

The second spurious complaint was filed on September 10, 1987, on behalf of Domingo N. Panadero, under similar circumstances. Panadero had also died long before the complaint was filed.

A third similarly spurious complaint was filed on July 12, 1990, on behalf of Catalino de la Cruz. When investigated, de la Cruz executed an affidavit stating that he had never been to Bacolod City, had never verified any such complaint, and did not even know who Corral was.

The Issue: Did the Lawyer Fulfill His Duty?

The central issue was whether Corral had fulfilled his duty as a notary public when he notarized the three complaints without ascertaining the true identities of the purported complainants.

Corral argued that he could not be faulted for not investigating further into the identities of the impostors. He claimed that the impostors presented forms of identification—an SSS card, an SSS Form E-1, and an ID—and that he had sufficiently complied with his obligations as a notary public by relying on what they presented. He reasoned that the complaints were simple and justified, merely seeking the remittance of unpaid SSS premiums.

The Ruling: A Grave Breach of Notarial Duty

The Supreme Court rejected Corral's defense. The Court held that Corral failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duty under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, which requires a party to any document notarized by a notary public to personally appear before the latter. Bareno, Panadero, and de la Cruz did not personally appear before Corral. Their death certificates and unrebutted affidavit proved this beyond doubt.

The Court noted that Corral did not clarify whether the forms of identification presented to him were valid. He never explained what documents Bareno's impostor presented or what kind of ID de la Cruz's impostor showed him. The SSS Form E-1 presented by Panadero's impostor was only a statement of a member's beneficiaries and did not, in any way, prove that the bearer was the member whose name appeared on the form.

The Court emphasized that a notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, to swear that he is that person, and to ask whether the latter has voluntarily and freely executed the same. The Court stressed that faithful observance of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.

The Consequences: Suspension and a Show-Cause Order

For violating Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court indefinitely suspended Corral's notarial commission, if still extant. The Court further directed Corral to show cause within ten days why he should not be disbarred.

The Court found that Corral breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a solemn act. It is not a mere routine formality. A notary public must ensure that the person executing a document personally appears before him and swears to the truth of its contents.
• Verify identity rigorously. Relying on any form of identification is not enough. The notary must ascertain that the identification presented is valid and that the bearer is truly the person named in the document.
• Know what identification proves. An SSS Form E-1, for example, merely states a member's beneficiaries. It does not prove that the bearer is the member whose name appears on the form.
• Carelessness has consequences. A lawyer who recklessly notarizes documents without verifying identity undermines public confidence in notarial documents and may face suspension or disbarment.
• The duty is personal. A lawyer cannot delegate or casually discharge the duty to verify identity. The law requires personal appearance and personal verification before a notary public.

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