Ascaño vs. Panem

A notary public must strictly comply with the requirements of personal appearance and competent proof of identity under the Notarial Rules; failure to do so, coupled with making untruthful statements in a court pleading to conceal such failure, constitutes serious administrative offenses warranting suspension from law practice, revocation of notarial commission, disqualification, and a fine.

Flordelina Ascaño (complainant) owned a property in Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur. A Deed of Absolute Sale covering the property was notarized by Atty. Mario V. Panem (respondent) in favor of Spouses Severino and Matilde Guillermo. Complainant alleged she never appeared before respondent for the notarization. When confronted, respondent offered to handle a civil case to recover the property. However, in the complaint he filed, respondent stated that complainant had appeared before him for the notarization, contrary to her narration. This led complainant to file an administrative complaint against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violations of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

• Nature of the Complaint: Complainant Ascaño filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Panem for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale involving her property without her presence and for representing conflicting interests.
• The Notarization: Complainant alleged she was in Bulacan and never appeared before respondent in Ilocos Sur for the notarization. Respondent claimed she appeared and presented a community tax certificate (CTC).
• Failure of Proof and Reporting: Respondent failed to present his notarial register to prove complainant's appearance, claiming it was destroyed in a flood in July 2006. He also failed to submit his notarial report and documents to the Clerk of Court for the period March 17, 2006, to December 31, 2007.
• Subsequent Legal Representation: Respondent later filed a complaint for reconveyance on behalf of complainant. In that pleading, he stated that complainant had personally appeared before him for the notarization, which contradicted her claim. Complainant demanded an amendment, but respondent refused, forcing her to hire new counsel.
• IBP Proceedings: The IBP found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and the CPR (later superseded by the CPRA). It recommended penalties short of disbarment.

• Personal Appearance: Complainant maintained that she never appeared before respondent for the notarization of the Deed, as she was residing in Bulacan at the time.
• Conflicting Interests: Complainant argued that respondent represented conflicting interests because he notarized the Deed adverse to her and then represented her in a case to annul it.

• Personal Appearance and Identity: Respondent countered that complainant did appear before him and presented a community tax certificate as proof of identity.
• Loss of Records: Respondent argued that his notarial register and documents were destroyed when his office flooded in July 2006, excusing his failure to produce them or submit reports.
• No Conflict of Interest: Respondent maintained he only represented complainant in the civil action and thus did not represent conflicting interests.

• Notarial Violations: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing a document without the affiant's personal appearance and without requiring competent evidence of identity.
• Reportorial Failure: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by failing to submit his notarial report and documents to the Clerk of Court.
• Untruthful Statements: Whether respondent violated the CPRA and the Lawyer's Oath by making untruthful statements in a court pleading.
• Conflict of Interest: Whether respondent represented conflicting interests.

• Notarial Violations: Respondent violated the Notarial Rules. The absence of the notarized document from his notarial records cast doubt on his claim of complainant's appearance. Even if she appeared, a community tax certificate is not a competent evidence of identity as it lacks a photograph and signature.
• Reportorial Failure: Respondent violated Section 2(h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. His unsubstantiated claim of a flood did not excuse his failure to submit reports for periods before and after the alleged calamity.
• Untruthful Statements: Respondent violated the CPRA (Canon III, Sections 2 and 6; Canon IV, Section 1) and the Revised Lawyer's Oath. He knowingly made a false statement in a pleading to cover up his notarial error, acting for his own selfish interests and against his client's wishes.
• Conflict of Interest: No violation was found. Respondent only represented complainant; the proscription against conflicting interests applies when a lawyer represents opposing parties, which was not the case here.

• Strict Compliance with Notarial Rules — A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the signatory and verify identity through competent evidence (e.g., government-issued ID with photo and signature). Failure to do so undermines the public purpose of notarization and renders the document suspect.
• Duty of Candor to the Court — Lawyers owe fealty to the cause of truth and justice. Knowingly making untruthful statements in pleadings is a serious breach of professional ethics, violating the fiduciary duty to the client and the duty as an officer of the court.
• Imposition of Separate Penalties for Multiple Offenses — Under the CPRA, where a lawyer is found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts in a single proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense.

• "If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document." — Emphasizes the evidentiary weight and presumption of regularity afforded to notarized documents and the consequence of their absence from records.
• "Atty. Panem clearly acted for his own selfish interests by stating in the pleading that Ascaño personally appeared before him to have the Deed notarized... he only offered to represent Ascaño... because he was aware of the mistake he made when he notarized the document in the absence of the seller." — Illustrates the Court's finding of bad faith and motive for the subsequent misrepresentation.

• Malvar v. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017) — Cited for the principle that the absence of a document from notarial records engenders doubt about its due execution.
• Ong v. Bijis, A.C. No. 13054 (2021) — Followed as a precedent where a lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing a document without the affiant's presence and without requiring competent proof of identity.
• Lopez v. Mata, A.C. No. 9334 (2020) — Cited for the penalty imposed for failure to submit a notarial report.

• Section 1, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "acknowledgment" and requires the affiant's personal appearance and identification.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current government-issued ID with photo and signature.
• Section 2(h), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Mandates the notary public to submit a certified copy of monthly entries to the Clerk of Court.
• Sections 2, 6, Canon III; Section 1, Canon IV; Section 33(b) & (p), Canon VI; Sections 37, 39, 40, Canon VI, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — Provisions on a lawyer's duties of fidelity, candor, competence, and the schedule of sanctions for serious offenses, including the manner of imposition for multiple offenses.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Acting Chairperson)
• Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (On official business, but noted in the decision)
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao (On official business, but noted in the decision)
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (Ponente)
• Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (Concurring per the Division's composition)

N/A — The decision was unanimous.