Angeles vs. Ibañez

A notary public who notarizes a document without requiring the personal appearance of the affiants commits professional misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation or prohibition of notarial commission. The notary public's reliance on a third party's representation as to the authenticity of signatures does not excuse noncompliance with the mandatory requirement of personal appearance.

Complainants Avelino O. Angeles, Maria O. Angeles, Lauro O. Angeles, Rosalina O. Angeles, and Connie M. Angeles filed the complaint in representation of the deceased Loreto Angeles against Atty. Amado O. Ibañez, a practicing lawyer who served as the official notary public of Puerto Azul. The parties are connected through a bitter land dispute involving properties in Ternate, Cavite, the ownership of which hinges on an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" that respondent notarized on 18 February 1979. A prior administrative complaint, docketed as Administrative Case No. 3581, had been filed by the same complainants against respondent for alleged land-grabbing, but that case involved a different transaction and was dismissed. The present complaint is limited solely to respondent's notarial misconduct.

Complainants are residents of Highway, Sapang I, Ternate, Cavite, and are co-heirs of certain properties covered by tax declarations in the names of Barselisa Angeles and Juan Angeles. Respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez is a practicing lawyer who holds office in Malate, Manila, and served as the official notary public of Puerto Azul. The dispute centers on an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" which respondent notarized on 18 February 1979, entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 147, Book No. II, Series of 1979, with the place of execution designated as the City of Manila.

Complainants denied that they executed the document or that they ever appeared before respondent for notarization. They alleged that respondent lacked a notarial commission at the time, supporting this claim with certifications from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila stating that respondent was not appointed as a notary public for Manila for the years 1976-1977 and 1978-1979, and a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City stating that respondent was not duly commissioned as a notary public for the Province of Cavite in 1979 and that no copy of the subject document existed in its records. Complainants further alleged that respondent and his relatives were using the document in judicial proceedings pending before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite to their damage and prejudice.

Respondent admitted that he notarized the document but claimed he did so as Notary Public of the Province of Cavite, with a commission issued by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 1, Trece Martires City. He attributed the designation of "Manila" as the place of execution to a mistake by his former legal secretary. Respondent explained that the document was prepared and typewritten by complainant Rosalina Angeles, who was then employed as a typist at Puerto Azul, for a consideration of ₱20,000.00, as evidenced by a cashier's check and an "Exclusive Authority" attached to the document. He alleged that he did not require the personal presence of the parties because Rosalina Angeles assured him that the signatures appearing on the document were those of her co-heirs, and that nearly all complainants had submitted their residence certificates, the numbers of which were recorded in the acknowledgment portion.

Respondent also contended that the complainants were guilty of forum-shopping, citing a prior administrative complaint docketed as Administrative Case No. 3581 which had been dismissed. The IBP Commissioner found, however, that the prior case involved alleged land-grabbing over different parcels of land and was distinct from the present complaint, which pertained solely to misconduct in notarizing a document. The IBP Commissioner noted that respondent categorically admitted notarizing the document in the absence of the parties, and that the certifications submitted by complainants indicated respondent had no notarial commission for either Manila or Cavite on 18 February 1979. In his supplemental position paper, respondent submitted photocopies of his petition for commission as notary public for Cavite, his commission issued on 21 February 1978 for the term 1978-1979, and his oath of office.

• Forum-Shopping Defense Rejected by Petitioners' Filing: Complainants implicitly contested respondent's forum-shopping defense by filing the present complaint, which the IBP found to be distinct from the prior Administrative Case No. 3581, the latter involving alleged land-grabbing over different properties.
• Lack of Notarial Commission: Complainants alleged that respondent did not have the authority to notarize the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" as he did not have a commission as a notary public at that time, supported by certifications from the RTC of Manila and the RTC of Trece Martires City.
• Absence of Affiants: Complainants denied that they executed the document or that they ever appeared before respondent for notarization, contending that notarizing the document without requiring the presence of the parties constitutes professional misconduct.
• Use of Defective Document: Complainants alleged that respondent and his relatives were using the notarized document in judicial proceedings pending before the RTC of Naic, Cavite to their damage and prejudice.

• Forum-Shopping: Respondent contended that complainants were guilty of forum-shopping because they had previously filed the same complaint, docketed as Administrative Case No. 3581, which was eventually dismissed.
• Notarial Commission in Cavite: Respondent admitted notarizing the document but claimed he did so as Notary Public of the Province of Cavite with a commission issued by the RTC of Cavite, Branch 1, Trece Martires City, attributing the designation of "Manila" as the place of execution to a mistake by his former legal secretary.
• Reliance on Secretary's Representation: Respondent argued that his failure to require the presence of the parties was justified because complainant Rosalina Angeles, his confidential secretary, assured him that the signatures appearing on the document were those of her co-heirs, and that residence certificates of the affiants were recorded in the acknowledgment portion.
• Validity of Sale Despite Notarial Defect: Respondent contended that a defect in the notarization of a document of sale does not invalidate the transaction, and that the sale remained valid despite the defects in notarization.
• Absence of Criminal Intent: Respondent denied committing any crime, arguing that offenses in the Revised Penal Code are mala in se requiring intent, which he claimed was lacking in his case, and that there was regularity in the performance of his duty as official notary public of Puerto Azul.
• Prescription or Laches: Respondent pointed out that nearly twenty-eight years had lapsed without anyone questioning the sale or Puerto Azul's possession of the property, alleging that complainants were now denying the sale because they wanted to make it appear that they had land within or adjoining a quarry site they had invaded.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: Whether respondent committed professional misconduct by notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without requiring the personal appearance of the affiants.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether respondent's notarial commission should be suspended and whether he should also be suspended from the practice of law.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: Yes. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the document in the absence of the affiants, having relied solely on the representation of his confidential secretary as to the authenticity of the signatures.
• Appropriate Penalty: Yes. Respondent's notarial commission was revoked and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, the Court having adopted the IBP's recommendations with modification.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: Respondent admitted that he merely relied on the representation of Rosalina Angeles, his confidential secretary, that the signatures on the document were those of her co-heirs. Such reliance cannot exculpate him from the consequences of his recklessness and failure to comply with the requirements of law. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 requires that the notary public certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and that the same is his free act and deed. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and to ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed. Notarization converts a private document into a public one, rendering it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity; courts, agencies, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgment. Notarization is not an empty routine but engages public interest in a substantial degree, requiring that those not qualified or authorized be prevented from imposing upon the public and the courts.

• Appropriate Penalty: Under the facts and circumstances, respondent's notarial commission should not only be suspended but he must also be suspended from the practice of law. The IBP had recommended a two-year bar from notarial commission and one-year suspension from law practice. The Court adopted the recommendations with modification, imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of any incumbent notarial commission, and a one-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants in Notarization — The affiants must personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization. This requirement, grounded in Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 and Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, enables the notary to verify the genuineness of signatures and ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed. A notary public cannot delegate this duty or rely on a third party's representation as to the authenticity of signatures. In this case, respondent's reliance on his confidential secretary's assurance did not excuse his failure to require the personal appearance of the affiants.

• Public Interest in Notarization — Notarization of a private document converts it into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public. Notarization is not an empty routine but engages public interest in a substantial degree, and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized from imposing upon the public and the courts.

• "Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally." — This passage articulates the rationale for strict compliance with notarial requirements and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on notarial misconduct.

• "The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed." — This defines the purpose of the personal-appearance requirement and states the ratio decidendi for holding respondent liable.

• "Unfortunately for respondent, he cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his recklessness and his failure to comply with the requirements of the law by relying on his confidential secretary." — This establishes that delegation of the verification function to a trusted subordinate is not a valid defense against charges of notarial misconduct.

• Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002) — Cited as authority for the principle that the physical presence of affiants before the notary public is required to verify the genuineness of signatures and ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed. Followed.
• Joson vs. Baltazar, A.C. No. 575, 14 February 1991, 194 SCRA 114 — Cited for the principle that notarization engages public interest in a substantial degree and that the protection of that interest requires preventing unqualified or unauthorized persons from acting as notaries public. Followed.

• Section 1, Public Act No. 2103 (Notarial Law) — Requires that the acknowledgment be before a notary public who shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed, with the certificate made under the official seal. Applied to hold that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of personal acknowledgment.
• Section 2(b), Rule IV, Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 — Prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to establish that respondent's notarization without the affiants' personal presence constituted a violation.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.