Upholding Notarial Duties Accuracy and Diligence in Legal Documentation

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but one invested with public interest. In Santiago v. Rafanan (A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004), the Court reminded lawyers that the solemn duties of a notary public must be performed with utmost care and accuracy. The case serves as a clear warning that failure to comply with the mandatory formalities of the Notarial Law—even without fraudulent intent—will draw administrative sanctions.

The Case Against Atty. Rafanan

Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The complaint alleged that Rafanan, in notarizing several documents, failed to:

• Make proper notations regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants
• Enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register
• Execute the required certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he notarized

The complaint also alleged that Rafanan executed an affidavit in favor of his client while actively representing him, and that he harassed the complainant after a hearing.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Rafanan should be held administratively liable for his failure to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law, specifically the notation of residence certificates, the entry of notarized documents in the notarial register, and the certification required under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Rafanan guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, imposing a fine of P3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Mandatory Formalities Cannot Be Neglected

The Court emphasized that the Notarial Law is explicit on the duties of notaries public. Under Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code, notaries are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate, and to enter its number, place of issue, and date as part of the certification. Section 246 requires notaries to maintain a notarial register and to enter therein all instruments notarized by them.

These formalities are mandatory. The Court rejected Rafanan's argument that these requirements did not apply to affidavits related to cases pending before courts and government offices. The Notarial Law makes no qualification or exception, and no custom or age-old practice provides sufficient excuse for failure to adhere to its provisions.

Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse

The Court found Rafanan's excuse—that other notaries in his area did not comply with these requirements—unacceptable. It noted that where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason of their solemn oath to obey the laws. Lawyers are expected to be in the forefront of the observance and maintenance of the rule of law, and to keep abreast of legal developments.

The Certification Requirement Under Rule 112

The Court also addressed Rafanan's failure to comply with Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that affidavits be sworn to before a prosecutor or government official authorized to administer the oath, or in their absence, before a notary public. The notary must certify that he personally examined the affiants and is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

Rafanan believed that as counsel for the affiants, he had the option to comply or not with this certification. The Court rejected this view, emphasizing that the requirement is express and mandatory.

The Lawyer-as-Witness Issue

While the Court discussed the general rule that lawyers should avoid testifying in behalf of their clients (Rule 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility), it did not hold Rafanan administratively liable for executing an affidavit for his clients. The Court reasoned that the affidavit was necessary for the defense of his clients in a criminal case, and that the rule contemplates testimony during trial, not submission of an affidavit during preliminary investigation.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a public trust. Lawyers acting as notaries public must treat notarial acts with the highest degree of care and accuracy, as these documents carry evidentiary weight and are entitled to full faith and credit.
• Compliance is not optional. The requirements of the Notarial Law—notation of residence certificates, maintenance of the notarial register, and proper certifications—are mandatory. There are no exceptions for affidavits or other documents.
• Following bad examples is no defense. A notary cannot justify non-compliance by pointing to the practices of other notaries. Each notary is individually responsible for observing the law.
• Ignorance of notarial rules is inexcusable. Lawyers are expected to be conversant with basic legal principles, including notarial law and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Testifying for a client should be avoided. While not an absolute prohibition, lawyers should refrain from testifying for their clients except in limited circumstances, and should withdraw from active case management if their testimony becomes essential.

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