Dandoy vs. Edayan

A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and a lawyer thereby engages in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, when he notarizes a document without confirming the signatory's identity through competent evidence of identity—namely, at least one current photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document issued by an official agency, or the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the signatory—and a community tax certificate or cedula does not satisfy that requirement.

Hernanie P. Dandoy is among the heirs of Eutiquia Sumagang; his father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, was a party to a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Eutiquia's estate and executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo. Atty. Roland G. Edayan was a lawyer and notary public whose notarial acts were governed by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and whose professional conduct was governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint invoked Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the CPR and the 2004 Notarial Rules. The dispute concerned the integrity of notarial acts involving family property in San Juan, Siquijor.

Hernanie P. Dandoy, one of the heirs of Eutiquia Sumagang, filed a verified letter-complaint dated December 17, 2010 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against Atty. Roland G. Edayan for violation of Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dandoy alleged that on October 17, 2006, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney executed by his father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, in favor of Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo, granting Garzo authority to offer as collateral two parcels of land located in San Juan, Siquijor, and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate of Dandoy's late grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, wherein Jacinto was also one of the parties. According to Dandoy, Jacinto could not have been present before respondent on October 17, 2006 because Jacinto had passed away on July 13, 1999.

Dandoy further alleged that, through the SPA and the Deed, Garzo was able to mortgage the two parcels of land as security for a P400,000.00 loan; the mortgage was foreclosed and the mortgaged properties were not redeemed, to the great prejudice of Dandoy and his siblings. In support of his complaint, Dandoy attached a certified true copy of the SPA, Jacinto's death certificate stating that he died on July 13, 1999, a copy of the Deed, and a copy of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated October 17, 2006 executed by Garzo on behalf of Jacinto and Felipe Dandoy, Dandoy's uncle. Dandoy later filed a Manifestation dated August 28, 2015, stating that it was impossible for Felipe to have helped Garzo because Felipe was then terminally ill and confined to bed; Felipe died on February 10, 2007.

In his Sworn Statement dated May 22, 2011, respondent admitted having notarized the two documents but claimed that he verified the identities of the signatories through their residence certificates. He narrated that on the said date, two persons came to his office claiming to be Jacinto and Felipe and asked him to draft and notarize the SPA and the Deed. Felipe even confirmed the identity of Jacinto, and the witnesses to the documents, who were likewise present, confirmed the identities of the two. Respondent submitted that while residence certificates are not mentioned in the list of competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, these are still necessary for the proper execution of the notarial act as prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 465, the Notarial Law, and the Local Government Code.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto through the competent evidence of identity required by the 2004 Notarial Rules. It noted that the community tax certificate presented was not included in the list of competent evidence of identity under the Rules; that Felipe and Garzo were privies to the documents; and that the signatures affixed by the person claiming to be Jacinto in the SPA and in the Deed appeared discrepant, which should have raised suspicion on respondent's part and prompted him to require a signature- and photograph-bearing identification card. The IBP Investigating Commissioner also found the evidence insufficient to show that respondent willfully and maliciously conspired with Garzo and Felipe in depriving Dandoy and his siblings of their grandmother's property.

• Violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules: Dandoy alleged that respondent notarized the SPA and the Deed on October 17, 2006 even though Jacinto had died on July 13, 1999, so Jacinto could not have personally appeared before respondent; respondent thus failed to comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Prejudice from Foreclosure: Dandoy alleged that through the SPA and the Deed, Garzo mortgaged two parcels of land in San Juan, Siquijor as security for a P400,000.00 loan; the mortgage was foreclosed and the properties were not redeemed, prejudicing Dandoy and his siblings.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Dandoy charged respondent with violation of Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the CPR, and in his Position Paper dated July 8, 2015, also charged violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

• Admission of Notarization: Respondent admitted having notarized the SPA and the Deed.
• Identity Verification Through Residence Certificates: Respondent claimed that he verified the identities of the signatories through their residence certificates; two persons came to his office claiming to be Jacinto and Felipe and asked him to draft and notarize the documents, and Felipe and the witnesses confirmed the identities of the two.
• Residence Certificates as Sufficient Compliance: Respondent maintained that although residence certificates are not mentioned in Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, they are still necessary for the proper execution of the notarial act as prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 465, the Notarial Law, and the Local Government Code; he continued to maintain that the residence certificates sufficiently complied with the Rules' identification requirements.

• Notarial Practice: Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent's notarization of the subject documents without competent evidence of identity also rendered him liable under the CPR, particularly Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

• Notarial Practice: Yes. Respondent was correctly found liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules because he failed to confirm the signatory's identity through competent evidence of identity as required by Section 12, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. By notarizing the subject documents despite noncompliance with the 2004 Notarial Rules, respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

• Notarial Practice: Notarization is impressed with public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credence. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of his duties; he must inform himself of the facts he certifies and must not take part in illegal transactions. Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. Respondent failed to comply. He accepted residence certificates, but a community tax certificate or cedula is not valid and competent evidence of identity because it is not included in the list under the Rules and does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before the notary. Jacinto died on July 13, 1999, so he could not have appeared before respondent on October 17, 2006; had respondent required a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document, he would have discovered the imposture. The statements of Felipe and Garzo did not satisfy the witness requirement because they were privies to the documents, and the records do not show that the other witnesses showed respondent the required documentary identification. By accepting the residence certificates, respondent made it appear that Jacinto personally appeared and subscribed the SPA and the Deed, in violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules and to the prejudice of Dandoy and his siblings.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: As a lawyer, respondent was expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from any act or omission that might erode public trust and confidence in the legal profession. By notarizing the subject documents, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, making him liable under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Although the IBP Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence of willful and malicious conspiracy with Garzo and Felipe, that did not preclude liability for the notarial violations and the resulting CPR breach. Respondent's continued insistence that the residence certificates sufficiently complied with the Rules underscored his failure to keep abreast of legal developments, including changes in the notarial rules. His failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public damaged those directly affected by the notarized documents, undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public, and degraded the function of notarization. He was therefore liable both as a notary public and as a lawyer, and the modified penalty was consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Notarization is impressed with public interest — Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credence. A notary public must observe utmost care, inform himself of the facts he certifies, and not take part in illegal transactions. Applied because respondent's failure to verify identity undermined the integrity of the notarial system.
• Competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules — Under Section 12, Rule II, competent evidence of identity means identification based on (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. A community tax certificate or cedula is not competent evidence of identity because it is not in the list and does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before the notary. Applied because respondent accepted residence certificates.
• Credible witness requirement — The witness or witnesses affirming identity must not be privy to the instrument, must personally know the individual subscribing the document, and must either be personally known to the notary public or show documentary identification. Applied because Felipe and Garzo were privies and there was no evidence the other witnesses showed documentary identification.
• A lawyer's duty under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied because notarizing documents without complying with the 2004 Notarial Rules constituted such conduct.
• Duty to keep abreast of legal developments — A lawyer is duty-bound to keep abreast of legal developments, including changes in the notarial rules. Applied because respondent continued to rely on residence certificates despite the 2004 Notarial Rules.

• "The phrase 'competent evidence of identity' refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification." — This is the canonical definition of competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, central to the finding of liability.
• "Jurisprudence provides that a community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list of competent evidence of identity under the Rules; but moreso, it does not bear the photograph and signature of the persons appearing before them, which the Rules deem as the more appropriate and competent means by which notaries public can ascertain the person's identity." — This states the ratio for rejecting respondent's reliance on residence certificates.
• "Had respondent been more circumspect in performing his duties as notary public and asked for the photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document required by the 2004 Notarial Rules, he would have immediately discovered that the person before him was not the person whom he purports to be." — This applies the rule to the fact that Jacinto had died years earlier and could not have appeared.
• "By notarizing the subject documents, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct which makes him liable as well for violation of the CPR, particularly Canon 1, Rule 1.01 thereof" — This is the basis for liability under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Gaddi vs. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810, 815 (2014) — Cited for the rule that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible without further proof of authenticity, and that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credence; also cited for the notary's duty to observe utmost care.
• Bartolome vs. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1, 5, 9 (2015) — Cited for the rule that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify, should not take part in illegal transactions, and should not notarize unless the signatory is personally present and personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity.
• Baysac vs. Aceron-Papa, A.C. No. 10231, August 10, 2016, 800 SCRA 1, 11-12 — Cited for the rule that a community tax certificate or cedula is not valid and competent evidence of identity and for the penalty imposed for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8-9 (2015) — Cited for the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and for the penalty for notarial violations.
• Dizon vs. Cabucana, Jr., 729 Phil. 109 (2014) — Cited as one of the cases imposing a similar penalty for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Isenhardt vs. Real, 682 Phil. 19 (2012) — Cited as one of the cases imposing a similar penalty for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines competent evidence of identity as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. Respondent violated this by accepting residence certificates.
• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied because respondent notarized despite Jacinto's absence and death.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied because respondent's notarization without compliance with the 2004 Notarial Rules constituted such conduct.
• Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited for the duty of a lawyer to keep abreast of legal developments. Applied because respondent failed to recognize the changes in the notarial rules.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.