MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO, RESPONDENT.

Japitana versus Parado

The Case

This is a disciplinary proceeding for disbarment and suspension brought by Maria Fatima Japitana against Attorney Sylvester C. Parado, a member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant accuses the respondent of performing notarial acts without a notarial commission, of knowingly notarizing forged documents, and of notarizing documents without requiring competent identification from the signatories. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the two great duties of a notary public — the duty to hold a valid commission, and the duty to demand competent evidence of identity — and shows how the Supreme Court treats their breach as a matter of professional discipline, not mere clerical error.

Procedural History

The verified complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, which indorsed it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. The Commission on Bar Discipline directed the respondent to answer, and later set the case for mandatory conference. The respondent did not appear at the conference, and the conference was terminated with an order for the parties to submit position papers. The respondent submitted none.

Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero found no proof of forgery, but found the respondent dishonest for testifying that he held a notarial commission valid until 2008, when the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu certified that he held no commission for 2006. The Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted the recommendation with modification: it revoked the respondent's notarial commission, if any, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the Board's resolution and rendered its own decision.

Facts

On the twenty-second of June 2006, Attorney Parado notarized a Real Estate Mortgage between RC Lending Investors, Incorporated as mortgagee, and Maria Theresa Japitana and Ma. Nette Japitana as mortgagors. The mortgage covered the parcel of land on which the Japitana family home stood. On the same date, he notarized an Affidavit of conformity supposedly executed by the other members of the family. The complainant later assailed the signatures on both instruments as forgeries, and alleged that the respondent required no valid identification from those who appeared before him.

RC Lending thereafter petitioned for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, and the title was transferred to its name. It later moved for a break-open order so that it could take possession of the gated property. The complainant also alleged that her sister Theresa had been a schizophrenic since 1975, and, more importantly, that the respondent held no notarial authority at all, as certified by the Clerk of Court.

Before the Commission, the respondent never appeared and never filed a position paper. The certification of the Clerk of Court stood unrebutted: based on the notarial records, the respondent had not been issued a notarial commission for the year 2006. It also appeared that he had testified in court that his commission was effective until 2008.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Parado may be held administratively liable for performing notarial acts in 2006 without a notarial commission.
• Whether or not he may be held liable for dishonesty in testifying that he held a notarial commission effective until 2008.
• Whether or not he faithfully observed the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the documents upon the mere presentation of community tax certificates.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines should be increased.

Applicable Provisions

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provide on the term and place of a notarial commission:

A person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made.

This fixes the period and territory of notarial authority, so that a lawyer who acts outside a valid commission acts without authority.

Section 2, paragraph b, of Rule IV of the same Rules provides:

If the person appearing before the notary public is not personally known by him, the notary public shall require the person to present a competent evidence of identity.

This is the identification requirement the respondent failed to meet when he relied on community tax certificates alone.

Section 12 of Rule II defines competent evidence of identity:

Competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction, who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public a documentary identification.

Because a community tax certificate bears no photograph, it does not fall within this definition, and reliance on it alone is a punishable indiscretion.

The Court also invokes Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and direct them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent performed notarial acts without authority. The Clerk of Court's certification that he held no commission for 2006 stood unrebutted, since he neither appeared at the mandatory conference nor filed a position paper. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any notarial act, and one who acts as a notary public without the necessary commission is remiss in his professional duties and responsibilities. The Court stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act, but one invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may perform.

On the second issue, the Court found the respondent dishonest. He knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 despite the absence of a commission, and he testified falsely that his commission was effective until 2008. These misdeeds ran afoul of his duties both as a lawyer and as a notary public.

On the third issue, the Court held that even with a valid commission he would still be liable. He did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the documents, so he was bound to require competent evidence of identity. The community tax certificates they presented were insufficient, and reliance on them alone is a punishable indiscretion by the notary public.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the Board of Governors but increased the penalty, to put a premium on the importance of the duties and responsibilities of a notary public.

Doctrine

Only a person holding a valid notarial commission may perform notarial acts, and only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and during the two-year period of the commission. A lawyer who notarizes without a commission violates his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

When the person appearing before the notary public is not personally known to him, the notary public must require competent evidence of identity as defined in the Rules on Notarial Practice. A community tax certificate or residence certificate is not competent evidence of identity, because it bears no photograph, and reliance on it alone is a punishable indiscretion.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act; it is invested with substantive public interest, and it converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties.

Disposition

The Court suspended Attorney Sylvester C. Parado from the practice of law for two years and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public, with the order immediately executory.

Remember This

Memorize the twin rule: no commission, no notarial act; and no personal knowledge, no notarization without competent evidence of identity, for which a community tax certificate will never suffice. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and notarial practice to test the penalties for unauthorized notarization and the standard of competent evidence of identity.