Upholding Notarial Integrity: Consequences for False Notarization and Misrepresentation

The Supreme Court has consistently held that notarization is not an empty ritual—it is a public service that converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. When a lawyer notarizes a document without the parties actually appearing, or makes false statements in pleadings to cover up the mistake, the consequences are severe. In Ascaño v. Panem (A.C. No. 13287, June 21, 2023), the Court reminded lawyers that the notarial function demands scrupulous honesty, and that misconduct in this area will be met with swift and firm sanctions.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Flordelina Ascaño owned a property in Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur. She discovered that respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem had notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale involving her property in favor of Spouses Severino and Matilde Guillermo—without her presence as the supposed seller. When confronted, Atty. Panem offered to handle a case to recover the property. However, in the complaint he filed on her behalf, he made it appear that Ascaño had signed the deed in his presence before notarization, contrary to her actual narration of facts.

Ascaño filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She claimed Atty. Panem notarized the deed without her presence, failed to require competent evidence of identity, and failed to submit his notarial register for 2006-2007.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Panem should be held administratively liable for his actions as a notary public and as counsel.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Panem guilty of multiple violations. First, he violated Section 1, Rule II of the Notarial Rules, which requires the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public and the examination of competent evidence of identity. The Court noted that Ascaño vehemently denied appearing before Atty. Panem, and his defense—that his notarial register was destroyed by flooding—was unsubstantiated by evidence.

Second, the Court found that even assuming Ascaño appeared, Atty. Panem failed to require a competent evidence of identity. The deed showed she supposedly presented a community tax certificate, which the Court clarified is not a valid competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual.

Third, Atty. Panem failed to submit his notarial report and copies of notarial documents for the period March 17, 2006 to December 31, 2007, violating Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules.

The Court, however, disagreed with the IBP's finding that Atty. Panem represented conflicting interests. Since he only represented Ascaño in the civil action and no one else, that charge did not hold.

Making Untruthful Statements

The Court found that Atty. Panem's more serious misconduct was making untruthful statements in the complaint he prepared for Ascaño. He stated in the pleading that Ascaño personally appeared before him for notarization, despite knowing this was false. The Court observed that Atty. Panem offered to represent Ascaño only because he was aware of his own mistake, and he changed the narrative against his client's wishes to clear himself of wrongdoing.

This conduct violated Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Section 6, Canon III, as well as Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023 and was applied to this case. The Court also found he breached his duties under the Revised Lawyer's Oath to promote truth and justice and to do no falsehood in or out of court.

The Penalties Imposed

The Court imposed separate penalties for each offense:

• For violating the Notarial Rules in bad faith: suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of notarial commission if existing, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

• For making untruthful statements in a pleading: a fine of P100,000.50.

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

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization demands personal appearance. A notary public must require the affiant to appear in person and present competent evidence of identity—a current government-issued ID with photograph and signature. A community tax certificate does not qualify.

• Notarial records are sacrosanct. Lawyers must maintain their notarial register and submit monthly reports to the Clerk of Court. Claims of loss or destruction must be supported by evidence.

• Never make false statements in pleadings. A lawyer who drafts a pleading containing untruthful statements—even to cover up a prior mistake—violates the CPRA and the Lawyer's Oath.

• The CPRA applies retroactively. The Court applied the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to this case, signaling that its provisions govern pending and future administrative cases.

• Multiple offenses mean multiple penalties. The Court imposed separate sanctions for each violation, demonstrating that lawyers cannot expect leniency when they commit distinct acts of misconduct.

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