Brozas-Garri vs. Reago

A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before him or her to attest to its contents and truth; failure to observe this requirement constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the lawyer's oath.

Complainant Maria Brozas-Garri filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago, alleging, among others, that the latter notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) which bore her forged signature while she was in the United States. The SPA was used to authorize the respondent's wife to enter into a lease contract over the complainant's property. The respondent defended his actions by claiming the SPA was authorized and that the complainant had ratified the lease by accepting its benefits.

• Nature of the Complaint: Maria Brozas-Garri charged Atty. Lorenzo A. Reago with breach of duty and violation of his Lawyer's Oath based on three causes of action: failure to return a borrowed land title, preparing and notarizing an SPA with a forged signature, and failure to file an appellee's brief in a separate case.
• The Alleged Forged SPA: The complainant alleged that while she was in the United States, the respondent prepared and notarized an SPA bearing her forged signature. This SPA authorized the respondent's wife to enter into a contract of lease over the complainant's property.
• Respondent's Defense: Atty. Reago claimed the SPA was prepared upon the complainant's instruction and that she had knowledge of and consented to the lease, as evidenced by her acceptance of rental payments and benefits. He argued the SPA was superfluous for a lease of less than one year.
• IBP Findings: The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the first and third causes of action moot but held the respondent liable for improper notarization. It was undisputed that the complainant was abroad and did not personally appear before the respondent for the notarization. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and increased the recommended penalties.

• Forgery and Improper Notarization: Petitioner argued that Atty. Reago notarized the SPA despite her forged signature and her physical absence from the country at the time of notarization, which constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the Lawyer's Oath.
• Breach of Duty: Petitioner maintained that the respondent's failure to return the land title and file a required pleading constituted separate breaches of his professional duties.

• Authority and Ratification: Respondent countered that he was authorized to manage the property and that the complainant ratified the lease by accepting its benefits, rendering the issue of the SPA's notarization moot.
• Superfluity of the SPA: Respondent argued that the SPA was unnecessary for the execution of a lease contract with a term of less than one year.
• Lack of Demand for Status Report: Respondent claimed the charge regarding the failure to file a status report was a ploy to remove him as counsel, as the complainant could have simply made follow-ups.

• Notarial Practice Violation: Whether Atty. Reago violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without the personal appearance of the signatory and despite a forged signature.
• Professional Responsibility Violation: Whether the act of improper notarization also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

• Notarial Practice Violation: The respondent's act of notarizing the SPA without the complainant's personal appearance and with a forged signature violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is a substantive public interest act that requires the signatory's presence to convert a private document into a public one.
• Professional Responsibility Violation: The violation of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of Canon II, Sections 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (formerly Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR), as the lawyer engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct and made false representations.

• Sacred Duty of Notarization — Notarization is not an empty, ministerial act. It is invested with substantive public interest because it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Courts and the public must be able to rely on the notary public's acknowledgment.
• Personal Appearance Requirement — A notary public must perform a notarial act only if the signatory is in the notary's personal presence at the time of notarization and is either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The notary has a duty to demand that the document be signed in his or her presence.

• "Notarization is not an empty and meaningless act, or one done by rote. Rather, it is invested with substantive public interest because it converts a private document into a public document and makes that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face."
• "It is therefore sacrosanct that 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 or her to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein."

• Spouses Zialcita v. Latras, 848 Phil. 763 (2019) — Applied as a similar case where a lawyer was suspended for six months and disqualified from being a notary public for two years for notarizing a document without the affiant's personal presence.
• Gaddi v. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810 (2014) — Cited as precedent where a notary public's commission was revoked and he was suspended from law practice for one year for the same offense.
• Orola v. Baribar, 828 Phil. 1 (2018) - Cited as precedent where a lawyer was suspended for one year and prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for similar misconduct.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires a notary public to perform a notarial act only if the signatory is in the notary's personal presence and is either personally known or properly identified.
• Canon II, Sections 1 and 11, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and from making false representations or statements.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Chairperson)
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
• Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez