Upholding Notarial Duty Consequences FOR Incomplete AND Improperly Executed Documents

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers that the notarial function is not a mere ministerial act. In Ko v. Atty. Uy-Lampasa (A.C. No. 11584, March 6, 2019), the Court disciplined a lawyer-notary for notarizing deeds of sale that were incomplete and executed without the personal appearance of the supposed vendors. The case underscores that a notary public who fails to verify the identity and presence of signatories undermines the integrity of the notarial system and faces severe administrative penalties.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Rolando T. Ko filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint alleged that the respondent notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale over the same parcel of land, both involving Jerry Uy as vendee and several of the Sultan siblings as vendors.

The two deeds, dated October 12, 2011 and October 19, 2011, were similar in terms of the property and consideration but differed in the names of the vendors. In the first deed, only three of the eight named vendors actually signed. In the second deed, one named vendor did not sign at all. The complainant noted that an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale covering the same property contained the signatures and thumbmarks of all ten Sultan siblings.

The complainant also alleged that the respondent failed to indicate her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in several pleadings she filed.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether the respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for notarizing incomplete documents and for performing notarial acts without the personal appearance of the parties.

The Ruling on MCLE Compliance

The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP Board's finding that the respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850, which governs MCLE requirements. The Court noted that the respondent was exempted from the first three compliance periods because she was a former judge. She completed the required units for the fourth compliance period on May 19, 2012, well within the period ending April 14, 2013.

More importantly, there was no showing that the respondent had ever been issued a Notice of Non-Compliance. Under Rule 13 of B.M. 850, a member may only be declared delinquent for failure to comply after the 60-day period from receipt of a non-compliance notice has expired. Since no such notice was issued, the respondent could not be held liable for MCLE violations.

The Ruling on Notarial Violations

The Court, however, found the respondent guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. The evidence showed that the respondent notarized the two deeds despite incomplete signatures and identification details of the vendors.

The Court cited Section 6, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which expressly prohibits a notary public from notarizing a blank or incomplete instrument or document. In both deeds, several named vendors did not sign, and spaces for signature and identification details were left blank.

The Court also found violations of Section 2(b), Rule IV, which prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present before the notary and not identified through competent evidence of identity. Several of the Sultan siblings executed counter-affidavits stating they never appeared before the respondent. One sibling claimed he was in Bacolod City on the date of notarization, while others stated they did not sign any deed of conveyance in October 2011.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent used Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) as proof of identity. Jurisprudence holds that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity because it does not bear a photograph and signature of the individual, as required by Rule II, Section 12 of the Notarial Rules.

The Penalty Imposed

For violating the Notarial Rules, the respondent also breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and refrain from unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the IBP Board:

• Suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months
• Revocation of notarial commission, effective immediately
• Prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years

The Court warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize incomplete documents. A notary public must ensure that all required signatures and identification details are complete before affixing the notarial seal.
• Personal appearance is mandatory. The signatory must personally appear before the notary public. Notarizing a document without the party's presence is a serious violation.
• Use competent evidence of identity. A Community Tax Certificate is not sufficient proof of identity. The notary must require a current government-issued ID bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.
• Notarial violations carry severe penalties. Lawyers who breach notarial duties face suspension from practice, revocation of their notarial commission, and disqualification from future commissions.
• MCLE compliance requires proper procedure. A lawyer cannot be declared delinquent for MCLE non-compliance without first receiving a Notice of Non-Compliance and the opportunity to rectify the deficiency.

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