DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE, NARCISA L. FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI, AND JUANITO V. LEGASPI, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR., RESPONDENT.

Dela Cruz versus Dimaano

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment and disciplinary action against a lawyer commissioned as a notary public. Five complainants — Dolores Dela Cruz, Milagros Principe, Narcisa Faustino, Jorge Legaspi, and Juanito Legaspi — charge Attorney Jose Dimaano, Junior with notarizing a document they never signed and never appeared before him to acknowledge. The case matters because it fixes the standard of a notary's duty: notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, and a lawyer who certifies an acknowledgment without seeing the signatories personally commits a breach of the Notarial Law that warrants suspension and revocation of his commission.

Procedural History

The complainants filed their complaint for disbarment with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The case was referred to the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, where the Investigating Commissioner conducted proceedings and submitted a Report and Recommendation. The Commission found that the respondent had indeed notarized the questioned document on July 16, 2004 without the complainants appearing before him, and concluded that a clear case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had been committed. Following the Court's ruling in Gonzales versus Ramos, the Commission recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission if still existing, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years. On September 28, 2007, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed a resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the Commission. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the findings and recommendation and rendered its own decision.

Facts

On July 16, 2004, the respondent notarized a document denominated as an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights, purportedly executed by the five complainants and their sister, Zenaida Navarro. The document covered the estate of the complainants' deceased parents, a property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-303936.

The complainants alleged that their signatures on the document were forged, that they did not appear and acknowledge the document before the respondent on that date, and that the community tax certificates indicated in the document were not theirs. They pointed to the acknowledgment portion, where the respondent made it appear that they personally came and appeared before him and affixed their signatures in his presence. Through this document, their sister Navarro was effectively enabled to assume full ownership of the property and sell it to the Department of Public Works and Highways.

In his answer, the respondent admitted having a hand in preparing the document and admitted notarizing it. He explained that he notarized it in good faith, relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and community tax certificates appearing in the document were true and correct. He said Navarro would not lie to him, having known each other and been neighbors for thirty years. He disclaimed liability for any damage, considering that the falsified document had been revoked and canceled. The Investigating Commissioner established that the complainants did not appear before the respondent on July 16, 2004, that he notarized the document only on Navarro's representation, and that he did not ascertain whether the purported signatures belonged to the complainants.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent violated the Notarial Law when he notarized a document whose signatories did not personally appear before him and acknowledged the same.
• Whether or not the respondent may escape administrative liability by relying in good faith on the assurance of a long-time neighbor that the signatures and community tax certificates were genuine.
• Whether or not the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, have his notarial commission revoked, and be disqualified from reappointment as notary public.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, provides:

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

This provision defines when an instrument is authentic and requires the notary to certify that the acknowledging person is known to him and is the same person who executed the document.

Section 12 of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government Service Insurance System e-card, Social Security System card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration or immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons, Department of Social Welfare and Development certification; or (b) 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 documentary identification.

This provision now requires a party to the instrument to present competent evidence of identity before the notary, reinforcing the duty to verify who appears before him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent breached the Notarial Law. It reiterated that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before them to attest to the truth of what is stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. The respondent certified in the acknowledgment that the complainants personally came and appeared before him, when in truth they did not.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of good faith reliance on Navarro's assurance. The notary's duty is personal and non-delegable; he cannot rely on the representation of one party to vouch for the identity and appearance of the others. The Court stressed that lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face, and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents; otherwise, public confidence in notarized documents will be eroded.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the recommendation of the Commission and the Board of Governors and imposed the corresponding penalties.

Doctrine

A notary public must not affix his signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who personally appeared before him and acknowledged it as their free act and deed. The notary must certify that the acknowledging person is known to him and is the same person who executed the instrument, as required by Section 1 of the Notarial Law, and must require competent evidence of identity under Section 12 of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Good faith reliance on the assurance of a party that the signatures and community tax certificates of others are genuine is no defense; the duty to verify is personal to the notary. Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, because it converts a private document into a public instrument entitled to full credit upon its face, and any breach erodes public confidence in notarized documents.

Disposition

The Court revoked the respondent's notarial commission if still existing, disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two years, suspended him from the practice of law for one year effective upon receipt of a copy of the decision, and warned that a repetition of the same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, and a notary who certifies an acknowledgment without the personal appearance of the signatories breaches the Notarial Law. Examiners like to use this case to test the notary's personal duty of verification and the unavailability of good faith reliance as a defense in administrative disciplinary proceedings.