Upholding Integrity Consequences FOR Notarizing Documents Without Personal Appearance 4

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but one invested with substantive public interest. In a 2019 Resolution, the Court disciplined a lawyer who notarized a Deed of Donation without the required personal appearance of the parties. The case serves as a stern reminder that notaries public who fail to observe the formalities of their office face severe consequences, including suspension from the practice of law.

The Facts of the Case

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by spouses Marciano and Lerma Sambile against Atty. Renato A. Ignacio. The complainants alleged that on February 15, 2002, Remedios Sambile, the adoptive mother of Marciano, asked them to sign a document. At the time, they were busy hosting their daughter's birthday party and simply signed without reading the contents. Shortly after, Remedios returned and gave them a copy of the document, which turned out to be a Deed of Donation.

The Deed of Donation was signed by Remedios as donor, with the marital consent of her husband Herminio; Marciano as donee, with the marital consent of his spouse Lerma. The document was notarized before Atty. Ignacio on the same date. However, the complainants later discovered that Herminio had already passed away on July 17, 1987 — more than a decade before the deed was supposedly executed.

A complaint for annulment of the deed was later filed against the complainants, alleging that the document was falsified. The complainants insisted they had nothing to do with the falsification. They never appeared before Atty. Ignacio, and a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Cavite City confirmed that no copy of the Deed of Donation was among the notarial documents submitted by the respondent for 2002.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Ignacio should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Donation without the personal appearance of the parties who signed it.

Despite ample opportunity to respond, Atty. Ignacio failed to appear at the mandatory conferences and did not file his position paper. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that his act of notarizing the deed without the parties' presence violated notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The IBP recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, with an additional fine of P5,000.00 for his failure to comply with the Commission's directives.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings. The Court emphasized that the respondent was given ample chance to refute the allegations but chose to ignore the notices. The Certification from the RTC, coupled with the fact that the donor's spouse had been dead since 1987 yet supposedly signed the deed in 2002, clearly showed the notarization was dubious.

The Court cited Legaspi v. Landrito, which held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, and only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Through notarization, a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities of their duties.

The Court also cited Bautista v. Bernabe, which stated that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

While the Court noted that the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was not yet in force at the time the deed was notarized in 2002, the respondent's failure to require personal appearance still constituted a violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103. The Court further held that acknowledging that the parties personally appeared when they did not violated Rule 10.01 of the CPR and the lawyer's oath to do no falsehood. This also constituted a violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land.

The Court suspended Atty. Ignacio from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission if still extant, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization demands diligence. A notary public must verify that the persons signing a document are the same ones who personally appear before him or her. This is not a mere formality but a legal requirement.
• Ignoring administrative proceedings has consequences. A lawyer who fails to respond to complaints and directives from the IBP cannot simply avoid liability. The Court may proceed based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
• The law applicable at the time governs. Even if the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice did not yet apply, earlier laws such as Public Act No. 2103 already required personal appearance before a notary.
• Falsity undermines the profession. A lawyer who falsely certifies that parties appeared before him violates the CPR and the lawyer's oath. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the integrity of notarial documents.
• Penalties are severe. Violations can result in suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public in the future.

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