Upholding Integrity Notarial Misconduct AND Ethical Responsibilities OF Lawyers

The Supreme Court has long reminded lawyers that notarization is not a mere ministerial act—it is a public trust. In Ko v. Atty. Uy-Lampasa (A.C. No. 11584, March 6, 2019), the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law and revoked her notarial commission for notarizing deeds of sale without the vendors personally appearing before her. The ruling is a clear reminder that a notary public who fails to verify the identity and presence of signatories undermines the integrity of the entire legal system.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Rolando T. Ko filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa. The complaint alleged that the respondent notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale over the same parcel of land, involving substantially the same parties, but with material inconsistencies.

The first deed, dated October 12, 2011, named eight of the ten Sultan siblings as vendors. However, only three of them actually signed the document. The second deed, dated October 19, 2011, omitted two of the vendors named in the first deed, and one of the named vendors did not sign.

The complainant also pointed out that an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale covering the same property was executed a day later, on October 20, 2011, and this time, all ten Sultan siblings signed and thumbmarked the document.

Several of the Sultan siblings executed counter-affidavits denying that they ever appeared before the notary public. One stated he was in a different city on the date of notarization. Another claimed he never received any payment for the sale.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Uy-Lampasa violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when she notarized the deeds despite the vendors' absence and incomplete signatures.

The Ruling: A Notary's Duty Is Sacred

The Supreme Court held the respondent liable for violating Rule IV, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires that a person signing a document must personally appear before the notary public. The notary must also identify the signatory through competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID bearing a photograph and signature.

The Court found that the respondent notarized the deeds despite the incomplete signature and identification details of the vendors. Worse, several vendors denied ever appearing before her. The Court noted that a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) is not competent evidence of identity because it does not bear a photograph and signature, as required by the rules.

The Court emphasized that when a notary affixes a signature and seal, the public is led to believe that the parties personally appeared and attested to the truth of the document's contents. Notarizing documents without such appearance is "laden with dangerous possibilities" because of the conclusive presumption of due execution given to notarized documents.

The Court also found the respondent liable under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

The MCLE Issue: A Lesson in Due Process

Interestingly, the Court disagreed with the IBP Board on the issue of the respondent's failure to indicate her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number. The Court ruled that under Bar Matter No. 850, a lawyer can only be declared delinquent for MCLE non-compliance after the 60-day period to respond to a notice of non-compliance has expired.

Since the respondent was exempted from the first three compliance periods as a former judge, and she completed the required units for the fourth compliance period before the deadline, the Court found no basis to hold her liable for MCLE violations. This portion of the ruling underscores the importance of procedural due process in administrative cases.

The Penalty Imposed

The Court suspended Atty. Uy-Lampasa from the practice of law for six (6) months. It also revoked her notarial commission effective immediately and prohibited her from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. She was sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize without the signatory present. A notary public must personally verify the identity of every person signing a document. Failure to do so is a serious ethical violation.
• A Community Tax Certificate is not valid identification. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, competent evidence of identity requires a current ID issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.
• Do not notarize incomplete documents. A notary must refuse to notarize any instrument that has blank spaces or missing signatures, as this violates Rule IV, Section 6 of the Notarial Rules.
• Notarial misconduct carries severe penalties. Lawyers who violate notarial rules risk suspension from the practice of law, revocation of their notarial commission, and disqualification from future commission.
• MCLE violations require due process. A lawyer cannot be declared delinquent for MCLE non-compliance without first receiving a notice of non-compliance and the opportunity to respond within the prescribed period.

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