ZENAIDA GONZALES SERZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, RESPONDENT.

Serzo versus Flores

The Case

This is a disbarment case. Zenaida Gonzales Serzo filed a complaint against Attorney Romeo M. Flores, a lawyer and notary public, because he notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 28, 2000 in which a man who had already been dead for more than a month appeared as the seller. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest short statement of what notarization really is: not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, so that a notary who acknowledges a document without seeing the signatories personally appear commits a breach of the Notarial Law and of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, punishable by revocation of his commission and suspension from the practice of law.

Procedural History

The complaint for disbarment was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. After the parties submitted their respective position papers, the Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation finding the respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as notary public for failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him. On March 22, 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines approved and adopted that Report and Recommendation, and the Commission forwarded its Notice of Resolution to the Supreme Court. The case therefore reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding for disbarment, with the Court reviewing the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar, and it is that recommendation which the Court now passes upon in this decision.

Facts

Neybardo Gonzales y Villaluna owned a parcel of land of 7,500 square meters situated in Cardona, Rizal. He died on October 16, 2000. His daughter, the complainant Zenaida Gonzales Serzo, later discovered a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 28, 2000, purporting to show that her deceased father had sold that land to one Yolanda dela Cruz. The deed bore the signatures of Gonzales and of Yolanda, and it had been notarized by the respondent, Attorney Romeo M. Flores.

Below the signatures appeared entries showing marital consent given by one Maura Villarina, identified as the daughter of Gonzales, and the signatures of two witnesses, Eufemia Gonzales and Redentor Panguito. But Maura Villarina, the wife of Gonzales who purportedly gave her marital consent, had long been dead as of the date of the deed. The execution of the document also spawned a criminal charge for falsification of public document against the complainant's sister Amelia Gonzales Laureno, who signed on behalf of their mother, as well as against the alleged vendee Yolanda and the two witnesses.

The respondent did not deny having notarized the document. In his Answer he alleged that while the vendee Yolanda dela Cruz was known to the staff of his office, the person of the vendor may not have been disclosed to him, and that another person may have pretended to be the vendor, thus faking the presence of the vendor and allowing the entry of the date November 28, 2000 as the date of acknowledgment. He asserted that it was his practice to require the presence of the parties, and of the seller in a deed of sale, and to ask for identification such as a residence certificate, now a community tax certificate, or a passport or driver's license. He also said he could no longer recall the names and persons to the deed, considering that the document had been notarized almost two years before. The complainant, for her part, submitted a list of documents executed by Gonzales during his lifetime which the respondent himself had previously notarized.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public for failing to establish the identity of the person who appeared before him as the vendor.
• Whether or not the respondent's notarization of the deed violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1, particularly Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting the revocation of his notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

This is the general norm the respondent breached when he undermined public confidence in notarial documents.

Rule 1.01 of the same Code provides:

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court cites this rule as the more particular norm violated by the respondent's act of notarizing a deed executed by a person who was already dead.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the recommendation of the Integrated Bar to fault the respondent well taken. By the respondent's own admission, the parties to the Deed of Absolute Sale had previous records of instruments and documents which he had notarized. Given that, he ought to have quite known the person of Gonzales. Yet he readily notarized the document, certainly in the absence of Gonzales, who had by then already died. His claim that another person may have pretended to be the vendor betrayed a callous disregard for his responsibilities as a notary public and as a lawyer. The Court reminded notaries public of the importance of notarization in these words:

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.

And it drew the operative rule from that principle:

Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

On the second issue, the Court held that by his act the respondent undermined the confidence of the public in notarial documents and breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, more particularly Rule 1.01, which enjoins a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He was therefore faulted for violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Second, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and the truth of what is stated therein. Third, a notary who acknowledges a deed without the personal appearance of the signatories, and who fails to establish their identity, is negligent in his duties and violates the Notarial Law. Fourth, such negligence undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial conveyances and constitutes a breach of Canon 1, particularly Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which forbids unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The gravity of the sanction follows from the public character of the notarial office: because the public relies on the notary's seal, the lawyer who abuses it forfeits both his commission and, temporarily, his privilege to practice law.

Disposition

The Court revoked the respondent's notarial commission, if still extant, disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for two years effective immediately, directing him to report the date of his receipt of the Decision.

Remember This

Memorize the line that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, so a notary must not notarize unless the signatories are the very same persons who personally appeared before him. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and notarial practice to test the duties of a notary public and the administrative liability of a lawyer under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.