Bernardo Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos

A notary public who notarizes a document without requiring personal appearance of the signatory and without recording the act in his notarial register violates the Notarial Law, warranting revocation of his commission and suspension from practice, though not disbarment absent serious misconduct showing unfitness to remain in the Bar.

Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales was the registered owner of Lot No. 1-B-4-H covered by Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464, while Manuel A. Bernardo was her brother and Atty. Mario G. Ramos was a commissioned notary public and member of the Bar. Act No. 2711, Title IV, Chapter 11, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, requires every notary public to keep a notarial register recording all official acts and the particulars prescribed in Sections 245 and 246, with failure to make proper entries constituting ground for revocation under Section 249.

In September 1990, Manuel A. Bernardo borrowed from his sister, Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot No. 1-B-4-H, a 112-square-meter lot in her name located at the back of Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On October 22, 1990, Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented it to the Register of Deeds of Manila. Thereafter, on November 25, 1990, she sold the same lot to one Alfredo P. Castro, and when she asked Manuel to return her title, he refused.

On September 3, 1991, the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title had already been transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in his favor on September 5, 1990. The document had been notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on October 1, 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda denied having signed any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.

Because no return of title followed, Rosalinda filed with the NBI on September 3, 1991 a complaint for falsification of public document against Manuel. The NBI invited respondent for questioning, before whom respondent on September 12, 1991 executed an affidavit admitting that when Manuel presented the purported Deed of Absolute Sale for notarization, he found some defects in the document and that Rosalinda was not around. The NBI Questioned Documents Division compared the signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of Rosalinda's genuine signature and found they were not written by one and the same person. On October 5, 1992, the NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila and to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, together with Rosalinda's verified complaint for disbarment. In his Answer before the CBD, respondent admitted affixing his signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failing to enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book. The CBD hearings proceeded without complainant's appearance, leading to the recommendation of dismissal for loss of interest, while respondent's admission of non-registration remained on record.

• Violation of the Notarial Law: Complainant, through the NBI-transmitted verified complaint, charged respondent with violation of Act No. 2711, Title IV, Chapter 11, particularly Sections 245 and 246, based on his notarization of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Defective Notarization and Forged Signature: Complainant alleged that respondent admitted before the NBI on September 12, 1991 that the deed presented by Manuel had defects and that Rosalinda was not present, while NBI document examination found the signature on the deed and Rosalinda's genuine signatures were not written by one and the same person.

• Inadvertence and Excusable Negligence: Respondent maintained that he only inadvertently signed the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and that his signature was procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence.
• Good Faith Reliance on Assurances: Respondent argued that he simply relied on the assurances of Manuel, his kababayan from Pampanga, that the document would not be used for purposes other than a loan between brother and sister, and that he affixed his signature with utmost good faith and without intending to obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
• Prayer for Dismissal: Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the foregoing grounds, while admitting that he affixed his signature but failed to enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book and admitting execution of the September 12, 1991 affidavit before the NBI.

• Failure to Register Notarial Act: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in his notarial register the deed of absolute sale he notarized.
• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Whether respondent violated notarial duties by notarizing a deed where the purported vendor was not present and the document contained defects.
• Propriety of Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: Whether the complaint should be dismissed in view of complainant's failure to appear and prosecute before the IBP.
• Appropriate Sanction: Whether respondent's negligence warrants disbarment or a lesser sanction of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from practice.

• Failure to Register Notarial Act: Yes. Violation was established by respondent's own admission of non-entry, in direct breach of the duty to record all official acts with the prescribed particulars.
• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Yes. Notarization without the signatory's personal appearance and verification of genuineness and voluntariness breached the basic requirements of notarial duty.
• Propriety of Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: No. Dismissal was not warranted notwithstanding complainant's loss of interest, the admitted violation on the pleadings being sufficient to discipline respondent.
• Appropriate Sanction: Disbarment denied; revocation of notarial commission with disqualification from reappointment and six-month suspension from practice imposed, disbarment being reserved for serious misconduct showing unfitness to remain in the Bar.

• Failure to Register Notarial Act: The Notarial Law requires keeping a notarial register recording all official acts, with chronological entry of the nature of each instrument, the persons executing or acknowledging, witnesses, dates, fees, consecutive numbering, and, for contracts, retention of a correct copy and brief description of substance. Because respondent admitted affixing his signature yet not entering the deed in his registry, the breach was clear. Considering the evidentiary value of notarized documents, failure to record engenders doubt that the document was really notarized and is tantamount to falsely making it appear notarized when it was not, warranting discipline and revocation under Section 249(b).
• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converts a private document into a public document admissible without further proof of authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and credit, requiring utmost care. A document should not be notarized unless the signatories are the very persons who executed and personally appeared to attest to its contents and truth, enabling verification of genuineness and that the act is free. Respondent's own NBI affidavit that defects existed and Rosalinda was not around, coupled with the NBI finding of non-identity of signatures, showed disregard of solemnity of oath and authentication function, aggravated where the notary is a lawyer bound to obey laws and do no falsehood.
• Propriety of Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: The Investigating Commissioner inferred loss of interest from returned notices marked moved out, absence of forwarding address, and failure to inquire. Dismissal on that ground could not be wholly sustained because the pleadings themselves established the violation through admission of non-registration, providing an independent evidentiary basis for discipline without further complainant testimony.
• Appropriate Sanction: Disbarment, the most severe sanction, is reserved for cases where it is evidently clear by serious misconduct that the lawyer should no longer remain a member of the Bar, and should not be decreed when reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired. Respondent's lack of diligence, sympathy-driven accommodation of a kababayan, and ignorance of the importance of the notarial office warranted revocation of commission if still existing, disqualification from reappointment, and six-month suspension from practice with reporting and circularization requirements.

• Notarization as Conversion to Public Document — Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and entitled by law to full faith and credit upon its face. Applied to hold respondent to strict compliance because courts, agencies, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgment appended to a private instrument.
• Duties of a Notary Public: Register and Records — A notary must keep a notarial register recording all official acts in chronological order, stating the nature of each instrument, the persons executing or acknowledging, witnesses, dates, fees, consecutive numbers and page references without blank lines, and for contracts must keep a correct copy and brief description of substance. Applied to find violation where respondent admitted notarizing the deed but not entering it, a dereliction punishable by revocation under Section 249(b) of the Notarial Law.
• Personal Appearance and Verification Requirement — A notary should not notarize unless the signatories are the very persons who executed and personally appeared to attest to contents and truth, to verify genuineness of signature and that the document is the party's free act and deed. Applied to condemn notarization despite defects and absence of Rosalinda, with reliance on a friend's assurances rejected as illegitimate excuse.
• Failure to Record as Tantamount to False Notarization — If the document does not appear in notarial records and no copy is retained, doubt is engendered that it was really notarized, so it is not a public document and cannot bolster claims based on it; failure to record is tantamount to falsely making it appear notarized when it was not. Applied to underscore the gravity of respondent's omission given the evidentiary value of notarized instruments.
• Heightened Responsibility of Lawyer-Notary — Where the notary public is a lawyer, graver responsibility attaches by reason of the solemn oath to obey laws and do no falsehood or consent thereto, since certification gives the document the force of evidence. Applied to reject sympathy for a kababayan as justification and to impose suspension from practice in addition to revocation.
• Disbarment as Last Resort — Disbarment should never be imposed unless evidently clear that by serious misconduct the lawyer should no longer remain a member of the Bar; removal should not be decreed when reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired. Applied to limit sanction to revocation, disqualification, and six-month suspension rather than disbarment.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — States the controlling premise for strict notarial duties and why accommodation of a friend cannot excuse non-compliance.
• "Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — Defines the evidentiary consequence that justifies requiring utmost care and complete registry entries.
• "Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein." — Formulates the personal-appearance rule violated when Rosalinda was absent and defects were noted.
• "Disbarment should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his serious misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar." — States the sanction doctrine supporting suspension rather than disbarment for negligent violation.

• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912 (1997) — Cited for the proposition that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and restricted to qualified or authorized persons.
• Joson vs. Baltazar, Adm. Case No. 575, 14 February 1991, 194 SCRA 114, 119 — Cited for the rule that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and that acknowledgments must be reliable.
• Nunga vs. Viray, Adm. Case No. 4758, 30 April 1999, 306 SCRA 487, 491 — Cited to require notaries to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in performing duties.
• Arrieta vs. Llosa, Adm. Case No. 4369, 28 November 1997, 282 SCRA 248 — Cited, with Ramirez vs. Ner, 21 SCRA 207 (1967), to warn that non-observance undermines public confidence in this form of conveyance.
• Villarin vs. Sabate, Jr., Adm. Case No. 3324, 9 February 2000, 325 SCRA 123, 128 — Cited for the prohibition against notarizing unless signatories personally appeared to attest to contents and truth.
• Flores vs. Chua, 306 Phil. 465 (1999) — Cited for the purpose of personal appearance: verification of signature genuineness and voluntariness, and for the heightened duty of a lawyer-notary under oath.
• Antillon vs. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 (1917) — Cited for the authentication function of notaries and the solemnity and evidentiary purpose of acknowledgment without further proof.
• In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 602 — Cited as authority that disbarment is the most severe sanction and should not be decreed when a lesser penalty suffices.

• Sections 245 and 246, Act No. 2711 (Notarial Law) — Require keeping a notarial register of all official acts and chronological entry of nature of instrument, parties, witnesses, dates, fees, numbering, page reference, and retention of contract copies with brief substance; applied to establish respondent's admitted breach for non-entry.
• Section 249(b), Act No. 2711 (Notarial Law) — Makes failure to make proper entries in the notarial register ground for revocation of commission in the discretion of the proper judge; applied to justify revocation and disqualification.
• Section 30, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs admissibility of notarized documents without further proof of authenticity; applied to explain why notarization demands strict care.
• Articles 171 and 172, The Revised Penal Code — Punish falsification of public documents; applied as the NBI's recommended criminal basis against Manuel and respondent, separate from administrative liability.

Mendoza, J. and Corona, J., concur. Quisumbing, J., on official business.