SUSANA G. DE GUZMAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. FEDERICO T. VENZON AND GLENN B. PALUBON, RESPONDENTS.

De Guzman versus Venzon

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Susana G. De Guzman against two lawyers, Attorney Federico T. Venzon and Attorney Glenn B. Palubon. The complainant says she lost a parcel of land because Attorney Venzon notarized a document she never signed, and because Attorney Palubon used that document against her before the agrarian adjudication board. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the notary's duty under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and of the rule that a breach of those Rules is itself a breach of the lawyer's oath under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her administrative complaint and petition directly with the Supreme Court in December 2009. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Investigating Commissioner, in a report dated June 2013, recommended that Attorney Venzon be suspended as a notary public for six months and that the complaint be dismissed as against Attorney Palubon. The Board of Governors adopted that recommendation in August 2014. On the complainant's motion for reconsideration, however, the Board issued a new resolution in June 2015 recommending heavier penalties against Attorney Venzon: immediate revocation of his notarial commission if presently commissioned, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. Attorney Venzon moved for reconsideration, which the Board denied in October 2017. No petition for review was filed, and the case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter.

Facts

The complainant was the registered owner of a parcel of land of about thirteen thousand square meters in San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by a transfer certificate of title. On November 17, 2005, Attorney Venzon notarized a Sinumpaang Salaysay, a sworn statement purportedly executed by the complainant, waiving her rights over that land.

Using that document, two siblings named Hernando Santos and Imelda Santos-Garma, with the assistance of Attorney Palubon, filed a case before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board for the cancellation of the complainant's title. The case was resolved against the complainant, and she lost her land.

In his defense, Attorney Venzon admitted that an elderly couple appeared before him to have the document notarized, and that he did not require any competent evidence of identity because of their ages. He insisted that the notarization was lawful and in good faith. Attorney Palubon denied being the counsel of record for the Santos siblings in the agrarian case, saying he began representing them only when the complainant filed a criminal case over the allegedly falsified document. Both respondents also pointed out that the agrarian case was decided not on the sworn statement alone but on other evidence as well.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Venzon should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document without requiring competent evidence of identity from the persons who appeared before him.
• Whether or not Attorney Palubon should be held administratively liable for his participation in the agrarian case.
• Whether or not the penalties recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against Attorney Venzon are proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph b, of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Section 2. Prohibitions. — A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document — (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

This is the provision Attorney Venzon violated, because he notarized the sworn statement without any competent evidence of identity.

Section 12 of Rule II of the same Rules defines the phrase competent evidence of identity:

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; 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 fixes what the notary must demand before he may act, and shows that age alone excuses nothing.

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.

Rule 1.01 of the same Code provides:

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

These are the ethical norms breached when a lawyer-notary violates the Notarial Rules, because he then fails his oath and commits an act of falsehood.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Attorney Venzon administratively liable. It began from the settled principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, because it converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. The notary must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements of his office. By his own admission, Attorney Venzon notarized the document without requiring any competent evidence of identity, excusing the omission because the affiants were elderly. When he affixed his signature and notarial seal, he certified that the complainant personally appeared before him and attested to the truth of the contents, even though it appears it was not the complainant who had the document notarized. The Court called this conduct fraught with dangerous possibilities given the conclusiveness that courts and the public accord to notarized documents.

The Court added that in the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the 2004 Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, because an erring lawyer who is remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Integrated Bar that the complaint against Attorney Palubon must be dismissed for lack of evidence, since he was not the counsel of record in the agrarian case and no showing was made of his involvement in it.

On the third issue, the Court, guided by earlier cases where lawyers-notaries public notarized documents without the presence of the executing parties, imposed the same uniform penalties: revocation of the incumbent notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Doctrine

First, notarization is invested with substantive public interest; a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit on its face, so the notary must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of his office.

Second, under Section 2, paragraph b, of Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary may not perform a notarial act unless the signatory is personally present and is either personally known to him or identified through competent evidence of identity as defined in Section 12 of Rule II. The age of the affiant is no excuse.

Third, a breach of the 2004 Notarial Rules is also a violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, because the erring notary violates his oath and commits an act of falsehood and deceitful conduct.

Fourth, the standard penalty for notarizing a document without the presence or proper identification of the executing party is revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Venzon guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him from the practice of law for six months, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, revoked his incumbent notarial commission if any, sternly warned him against repetition, and dismissed the complaint against Attorney Palubon for insufficiency of evidence.

Remember This

Memorize the line that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, and that a breach of the Notarial Rules is a breach of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01. Examiners use this case on the notary's duty to demand competent evidence of identity and on the standard three-fold penalty for notarizing without the presence of the executing party.