Anudon vs. Cefra

A notary public must ensure the physical presence of the parties executing a document at the time of notarization; notarization in the absence of the affiants is a breach of duty warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from reappointment as notary public. Willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court independently constitutes a ground for suspension under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law who, together with Jimmy's brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of land in Sison, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. 69244. Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra, admitted to the bar in 1996, is a distant relative of the complainants who practices law and serves as notary public in the Municipality of Sison, Pangasinan. The dispute arose from the notarization by Atty. Cefra of a Deed of Absolute Sale over the co-owned property, which the complainants alleged was falsified.

Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon, who are brother- and sister-in-law, co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of land in Sison, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. 69244, together with Jimmy's brothers Johnny and Alfonso Anudon and sister Benita Anudon-Esguerra. Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra, a distant relative admitted to the bar in 1996, practices law and serves as notary public in the same municipality.

On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land covered by TCT No. 69244. The deed named Johnny, Alfonso, Benita, Jimmy, and Juanita as vendors, and Celino Paran, Jr. as vendee. Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the deed was falsified — they did not sign it, nor did they sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of Investigation's Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita's signatures were forged. They further stated that it was physically impossible for Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita to have signed the deed, as Johnny and Benita were in the United States and Alfonso was in Cavite on the date of execution.

Atty. Cefra's acknowledgment on the document stated that all five vendors personally appeared before him and exhibited their Community Tax Certificates. This was contrary to the actual circumstances. Due to the forgery, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witnesses, filed a case of falsification of public document against Atty. Cefra and Paran. Jimmy and Juanita also initiated a disciplinary action by filing a Complaint with the Supreme Court on August 6, 2001.

In his defense, Atty. Cefra stated that on July 10, 1998, Juanita and Jimmy's wife Helen went to his residence to consult him on how to sell the land to Paran. He assisted in preparing the deed of sale and acknowledgment receipts. On August 13, 1998, Paran's relatives, Viola Carantes and Lita Paran, brought the Deed of Absolute Sale to the residences of Jimmy, Juanita, and Johnny's son Loejan Anudon to have the document signed. They informed Atty. Cefra that they witnessed Jimmy, Juanita, and Loejan sign the document. Loejan affixed the signatures for his father Johnny and his uncle and aunt Alfonso and Benita. Atty. Cefra admitted knowing that Loejan signed on behalf of the three with their "full knowledge and permission," and allowed this because he believed it was justified since Loejan needed the proceeds for the amputation of his mother's leg. Loejan did not have formal authorization to sign on behalf of the absent co-owners. Atty. Cefra claimed he notarized the document in good faith, trusting in the complainants' words, with the purpose of helping them legally and financially.

After the case was referred to the IBP, the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Cefra's conduct violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommended penalties, which were subsequently modified upon Atty. Cefra's Motion for Reconsideration. Neither party filed a Petition for Review of the IBP's final resolution.

• Forgery and Absence of Affiants: Complainants alleged that they did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale and did not appear before Atty. Cefra, and that it was physically impossible for Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita to have signed the deed because they were in the United States and Cavite, respectively, on the date of execution.
• Falsification of Public Document: Complainants initiated both a criminal case for falsification of public document and an administrative disciplinary action, questioning the propriety of Atty. Cefra's conduct as lawyer and notary public.

• Good Faith: Atty. Cefra claimed he notarized the questioned document in good faith, trusting in the complainants' words and pronouncements, with the sole purpose of helping them legally and financially.
• Awareness of the Sale: Atty. Cefra maintained that Jimmy and Juanita were aware of the sale of the property, narrating that Juanita and Jimmy's wife Helen consulted him on July 10, 1998 regarding the sale to Paran.
• Authorization for Proxy Signatures: Atty. Cefra admitted knowing that Loejan affixed the signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita with their "full knowledge and permission," and allowed this because he believed it was justified given Loejan's need for the proceeds for his mother's leg amputation.
• Mitigation of Penalty: Atty. Cefra filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the IBP, asking that the recommended penalty be tempered.

• Validity of Notarization: Whether Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the physical presence of the affiants.
• Willful Disobedience: Whether Atty. Cefra's failure to comply with the Court's order to file a Comment for over seven years constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court warranting disciplinary action.

• Validity of Notarization: Yes. Notarization of a document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty; the notary public must ensure that the affiants personally appear before him at the time of notarization.
• Willful Disobedience: Yes. Atty. Cefra's contumacious delay in filing his Comment — from September 19, 2001 until January 15, 2008, and only after his arrest — constituted willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, warranting additional penalty.

• Validity of Notarization: The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public one, rendering it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity, and that courts, agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon the notary's acknowledgment. Under Act No. 2103, the earliest law on notarization, an acknowledgment must be made before a notary public in the place where the act is done. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule II, Section 1, require that the affiant appear in person before the notary public, present an integrally complete instrument, be personally known or identified through competent evidence, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Rule IV, Section 2(b) prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence at the time of notarization. Without physical presence, the notary cannot properly assess whether the affiant voluntarily affixed his signature or verify its genuineness. Atty. Cefra notarized the deed based solely on the representations of the vendee's relatives, who merely informed him that the vendors had signed. The vendors never appeared before him. Loejan forged the signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita without formal authorization. The Court found that Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not relied on the representations of the vendee's representatives, as the possibility of forgery became real and the terms favorable to the vendors might not have been reflected in the document submitted for notarization.

• Willful Disobedience: Beyond the notarial violation, Atty. Cefra was found guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. His contumacious delay in complying with the Court's order to file a Comment — issued as early as September 19, 2001, but not complied with until January 15, 2008, more than seven years later, and only after he was arrested by NBI agents — demonstrated utter disrespect for legal processes. This conduct also violated Canon 11 of the CPR, which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due to the courts. Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension. Atty. Cefra's disobedience was not explained even when he eventually filed his Comment, making it clearly willful and inexcusable. The Court accordingly modified the IBP's recommended penalty to account for all acts of misconduct, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

• Physical Presence Requirement in Notarization — For a valid acknowledgment, the affiant must personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization, present an integrally complete instrument, be identified through competent evidence, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. The notary public must assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his signature; without physical presence, this duty cannot be discharged. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing fictitious or spurious documents and must demand that the document be signed in their presence.

• Notarization as Protection of Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty routine but engages public interest in a substantial degree. It converts a private document into a public one, rendering 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. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents.

• Willful Disobedience as Ground for Suspension — Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. A lawyer's contumacious refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's directives, unexplained even after eventual compliance, betrays a recalcitrant flaw in character and underscores disrespect of the Court's lawful orders.

• "Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. 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 rules, emphasizing the public-interest dimension of notarization that justifies the stringent duty of the notary public.

• "[A] document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the physical-presence rule, frequently cited in subsequent notarial-practice jurisprudence.

• "Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document." — This passage defines the essential function of notarization and explains why the absence of the affiants defeats its purpose.

• Angeles vs. Atty. Ibañez, 596 Phil. 99 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that notarization converts a private document into a public one and engages substantial public interest, requiring strict compliance with notarial rules.
• Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons Officials, 312 Phil. 100 (1995) — Cited for the rule that the party acknowledging must appear before the notary public.
• Spouses Domingo vs. Reed, 513 Phil. 339 (2005) — Cited for the doctrine that a document should not be notarized unless the persons executing it are personally appearing before the notary public, and that notaries public must guard against illegal deeds.
• Isenhardt vs. Atty. Real, 666 SCRA 20 (2012) — Cited as a case where the respondent notary was guilty of notarizing a document without the presence of the parties; the Court imposed two-year disqualification as notary and one-year suspension from law practice.
• Linco vs. Atty. Lacebal, 659 SCRA 130 (2011) — Cited as a case where the respondent notarized documents even though the executing persons were already dead; same penalty imposed.
• Lanuzo vs. Atty. Bongon, 587 Phil. 658 (2008) — Cited as a case involving notarization of documents for deceased persons; same penalty imposed.
• Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 (2006) — Cited as a case where the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization; same penalty imposed.
• De Jesus vs. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, A.C. No. 6470 (July 8, 2014) — Cited as a recent case where the respondent notarized 22 public documents without the signatures of the parties; the Court imposed one-year suspension and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.
• Sebastian vs. Atty. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders indicates a high degree of irresponsibility and underscores disrespect of the Court's lawful orders, warranting reproof and suspension.

• Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) — The earliest law on notarization in the Philippines, providing that an 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." Applied to establish the statutory foundation of the physical-presence requirement.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Section 1 — Defines "acknowledgment" as an act requiring the affiant to (a) appear in person before the notary public and present an integrally complete instrument, (b) be attested as personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and (c) represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Applied to show that Atty. Cefra failed to satisfy all three requisites.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 2(b) — 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 or identified through competent evidence. Applied to establish that Atty. Cefra's notarization was expressly prohibited.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1 — Requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to Atty. Cefra's notarial violation and his contumacious delay in complying with the Court's order.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 11 — Requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Applied to Atty. Cefra's willful disobedience of the Court's directive.
• Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 1 — Provides that willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Applied to justify the penalty imposed for Atty. Cefra's seven-year refusal to file his Comment.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (On Leave), Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (On leave), Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.