Coquia vs. Laforteza

A clerk of court acting as an ex officio notary public may notarize only documents connected to the exercise of official functions; notarizing private documents unrelated to those functions is unauthorized, and a notary public must not notarize a pre-signed document without the signatory's personal appearance and competent evidence of identity.

Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza was formerly the Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and by virtue of that office served as an ex officio notary public. Flordeliza E. Coquia was a party to an Agreement and a Payment Agreement with Clemente Solis in connection with Civil Case No. 18943. Clerks of court are notaries public ex officio under the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court, while the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prescribe the requirements for acknowledgments and prohibit notarial acts when the signatory does not personally appear or is not identified through competent evidence.

Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza served as Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, from November 17, 2004 until January 31, 2011. On February 1, 2011, he transferred to the Department of Justice, and on January 8, 2016, he was appointed Prosecutor II in the OPP-Pangasinan. Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a Petition for Disbarment against him, docketed as A.C. No. 9364, for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil Case No. 18943. Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while Atty. Laforteza was still clerk of court, he conspired with Clemente Solis to falsify two documents—an Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia, and a Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia—and subsequently notarized them. She claimed the documents were forged to make it appear that on that date she subscribed and swore to them before Atty. Laforteza, when she was actually attending classes at Centro Escolar University in Manila, as evidenced by a certified true copy of the CEU Faculty Daily Time Record for December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009. She further asserted that Atty. Laforteza was not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan.

Atty. Laforteza denied the allegations. He recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending to his work, Luzviminda Solis, wife of Clemente, came with other persons. Luzviminda introduced those persons to him as the parties to the subject documents and requested him to subscribe the documents as proof of their transaction because they were blood relatives. He claimed he hesitated at first and directed them to seek the services of a notary public, but they insisted on his assistance and accommodation. Thinking in good faith that it would serve the parties' interest, he performed the subscription of the jurat; after propounding some questions, he was convinced that the persons who came to him were the same parties to the documents. He denied any conspiracy or connivance with the Solises and maintained that no evidence supported Coquia's bare allegation. He invoked the presumption of regularity and apologized should his act as a subscribing officer be deemed improper.

In a Joint-Affidavit dated July 2, 2012, Clemente and Luzviminda denied having connived or conspired with Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and execution of the documents. They narrated that Atty. Laforteza initially refused their request to notarize the documents but they convinced him to assist them in the interest of justice. Clemente insisted that he was one of the signatories and had personal knowledge that Coquia's signature on the documents was her true signature, having seen her affix her signatures.

During the mandatory conference before the IBP, both parties agreed that Atty. Laforteza was authorized to administer oaths. As to establishing the identity of the parties, however, Atty. Laforteza admitted that he did not personally know either Coquia or Clemente and merely relied on Luzviminda and Loma Viray, who were known to him as fellow court employees, to establish their identities. He likewise admitted that Coquia did not sign the documents in his presence and that someone present on the said date allegedly owned the signature of Coquia as hers. The subject documents were private documents unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions, and the civil case from which they originated was not raffled to Branch 68. No certification attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit was included, and no notarial fees were shown to have been charged for the account of the government and turned over to the municipal treasurer. Atty. Laforteza also affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and the identification details of the parties in the acknowledgment portion were lacking.

• Conspiracy and Falsification: Coquia alleged that Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis to falsify two documents—an Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia and a Payment Agreement executed by Coquia—and then notarized them.
• Forgery and False Subscription: Coquia claimed the documents were forged to make it appear that on January 7, 2009 she subscribed and swore to them before Atty. Laforteza, when she was actually attending classes at Centro Escolar University in Manila, as shown by the CEU Faculty Daily Time Record for December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009.
• Unauthorized Notarization: Coquia asserted that Atty. Laforteza was not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and that this constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

• Denial of Conspiracy: Atty. Laforteza denied the allegations and any conspiracy or connivance with the Solises, pointing out that no evidence other than Coquia's bare allegation was presented.
• Good Faith and Accommodation: He claimed that Luzviminda Solis brought persons who were introduced as the parties to the documents; she requested subscription because they were blood relatives; he initially hesitated and referred them to a notary public, but they insisted, and he acted in good faith and in response to the exigency of the situation.
• Verification and Regularity: He claimed that after propounding questions he was convinced the persons were the same parties to the documents, invoked the presumption of regularity, and apologized should his act as a subscribing officer be deemed improper.

• Conspiracy/Falsification: Whether complainant presented preponderant evidence that Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis in the falsification and preparation of the Agreement and Payment Agreement.
• Unauthorized Notarization: Whether Atty. Laforteza, as an ex officio notary public and Clerk of Court, acted beyond his authority in notarizing private documents unrelated to his official functions.
• Notarial Law Violations: Whether Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a pre-signed document without the signatories' personal appearance and without competent evidence of identity.
• Penalty/Jurisdiction: Whether disciplinary sanctions could be imposed on Atty. Laforteza after he ceased to be a court employee, and what penalty was proper for his notarial violations.

• Conspiracy/Falsification: No. The complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence of direct or instrumental participation or connivance; bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption of regularity.
• Unauthorized Notarization: Yes. An ex officio notary public may notarize only matters related to official functions; the private documents were unrelated, and the two requisites for notarizing unrelated documents were absent.
• Notarial Law Violations: Yes. Notarizing a pre-signed document without personal appearance and without competent evidence of identity violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Penalty/Jurisdiction: No, as to disciplinary jurisdiction over him as an erring court employee because the complaint was filed after he ceased employment; however, his notarial commission, if any, was revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.

• Conspiracy/Falsification: In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension, the quantum of proof is clearly preponderant evidence, and the burden rests on the complainant. Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence that Atty. Laforteza had direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with the Solises, in the preparation of the subject documents. Although it may be assumed that Atty. Laforteza had a hand in their preparation, such supposition cannot be given evidentiary weight without supporting evidence. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Thus, the conspiracy and falsification charge was not established.
• Unauthorized Notarization: Under Borre vs. Moya, the power of ex officio notaries public is limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of their official functions and duties. Their empowerment to perform acts within the competency of regular notaries public—such as acknowledgments, oaths, jurats, signature witnessing, and copy certifications—is now the exception rather than the general rule. They may perform notarial acts on documents unrelated to official functions only if (1) a certification is included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit, and (2) all notarial fees charged are for the account of the government and turned over to the municipal treasurer. Neither requirement was present. The subject documents were private documents unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions, and the civil case from which they originated was not raffled to Branch 68. Under Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6733) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M, and N, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court, clerks of court are notaries public ex officio but may notarize or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. Exec. Judge Astorga vs. Solas held that clerks of court should not, in their ex officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation to their official functions; doing so is an unauthorized notarial act amounting to unauthorized practice of law and abuse of authority.
• Notarial Law Violations: Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. He admitted notarizing a pre-signed document and failing to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed it; he relied on Luzviminda's assurance that her companions were the actual signatories. In ascertaining identities, he contented himself with propounding several questions despite the Rules' clear requirement of competent evidence of identity, such as an identification card with photograph and signature. The acknowledgment portion lacked the pertinent identification details of the parties, and he affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. These facts showed a failure to exercise the due diligence required of a notary public ex officio. Notarization is not an empty routine; it ensures authenticity and reliability, converts a private document into a public one, and engages substantial public interest. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Section 1, requires personal appearance, personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity, and voluntary signature; Rule IV, Section 2(b), prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence. Notaries must demand that the document be signed in their presence and must guard against illegal deeds.
• Penalty/Jurisdiction: Atty. Laforteza's status as a mere ex officio notary public by virtue of his former position as clerk of court did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries public. However, because the complaint was filed after he had ceased to be a court employee, the Court could no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over him for the purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions over erring court employees. In Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen, an ex officio notary public who failed to verify the identity of all parties to a document had his notarial commission revoked and was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. The same penalty was deemed proper.

• Ex officio notary public's limited authority — A clerk of court is a notary public ex officio under Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court, but the power is limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of official functions and duties. The Court applied this rule to hold that Atty. Laforteza's notarization of private documents unrelated to his official functions was unauthorized.
• Requisites for notarizing unrelated documents — An ex officio notary may perform notarial acts on documents bearing no relation to official functions only if (1) a certification is included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit, and (2) all notarial fees charged are for the account of the government and turned over to the municipal treasurer. Neither requisite was present.
• Personal appearance and competent evidence of identity — Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, an acknowledgment requires the signatory to appear in person before the notary public, be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Rule IV, Section 2(b), prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence. Atty. Laforteza violated these requirements by notarizing a pre-signed document and relying on assurances rather than competent evidence.
• Quantum of proof in disbarment — In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension, the quantum of proof is clearly preponderant evidence, and the burden rests on the complainant; bare allegations cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. The conspiracy charge failed under this standard.
• Penalty for unauthorized notarization by an ex officio notary — An ex officio notary public is held to the same standards as commissioned notaries. Following Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen, failure to verify the identity of parties warranted revocation of the notarial commission, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.

• "As early as the case of Borre v. Moya, this Court had already clarified that the power of ex officio notaries public have been limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of their official functions and duties." — This states the foundational limitation on the authority of clerks of court acting as ex officio notaries, which the Court applied to find unauthorized notarization.
• "They may perform notarial acts on such documents that bear no relation to their official functions and duties only if (1) a certification is included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit; and (2) all notarial fees charged will be for the account of the government and turned over to the municipal treasurer." — This sets out the two requisites for the exception; their absence was decisive in finding Atty. Laforteza's notarization unauthorized.
• "Thus, 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." — This articulates the personal-appearance requirement central to the Notarial Law violation.
• "While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries public." — This explains why the penalty for notarial misconduct applied despite his ex officio status.

• Borre vs. Moya, 188 Phil. 362, 369 (1980) — Clarified that the power of ex officio notaries public is limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of official functions and duties; relied on to find unauthorized notarization.
• Exec. Judge Astorga vs. Solas, 413 Phil. 558, 562 (2001) — Held that clerks of court should not, in their ex officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation to their official functions; unauthorized notarial acts amount to unauthorized practice of law and abuse of authority.
• Cruz vs. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675 (2004) — Stated the quantum of proof in disbarment or suspension cases is clearly preponderant evidence, with the burden on the complainant.
• Atty. Reyes vs. Jamora, 634 Phil. 1, 7 (2010) — Held that bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
• Sps. Anudon vs. Atty. Cefra, A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015, 750 SCRA 231, 240 — Emphasized that notarization is not an empty routine and engages substantial public interest; relied on to stress the notary's duty to ensure personal appearance.
• Sps. Domingo vs. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 350 (2005) — Required notaries public to observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties to preserve public confidence.
• Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen, 726 Phil. 497, 501 (2014) — Imposed revocation of notarial commission and one-year disqualification on an ex officio notary who failed to verify the identity of parties; the Court adopted the same penalty.

• Section 41, Revised Administrative Code (as amended by Section 2, R.A. No. 6733) — Lists officers authorized to administer oaths, including clerks of courts and notaries public. The Court cited it with Section 242 and the Manual for Clerks of Court to establish that clerks of court may administer oaths only in matters related to official functions.
• Section 242, Revised Administrative Code — Provides that certain officials, including clerks of courts outside Manila, are notaries public ex officio authorized to perform notarial duties within their territorial jurisdiction. The Court applied it to limit Atty. Laforteza's authority to notarial acts connected to his official functions.
• Sections G, M, and N, Chapter VIII, Manual for Clerks of Court — Section G mirrors Section 242; Section M is lifted from Section 41; Section N provides that officers authorized to administer oaths, except notaries public, municipal judges, and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oaths save in matters of official business. The Court used these provisions to reinforce the official-function limitation.
• Rule II, Section 1, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines acknowledgment as requiring the signatory to appear in person before the notary public, be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Atty. Laforteza failed to comply.
• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. This provision was violated when Atty. Laforteza notarized a pre-signed document without verifying identities.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Jose Catral Mendoza, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza. Jardeleza was designated as an additional member per Special Order No. 2416 dated January 4, 2017. No separate concurring opinions are noted in the text.