Fonacier vs. Maunahan

A notary public who notarizes documents without requiring competent evidence of identity from the signatory and who fails to record notarial acts in the notarial register is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPRA, and such liability proceeds independently of any acquittal in related criminal proceedings.

Dominador C. Fonacier had acquired property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-246114 from the real Anicia C. Garcia through a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, with the duplicate copy of the title held in the custody of Fonacier's attorney-in-fact, Ramon Vicente Velasco. The real Anicia C. Garcia died on June 7, 1999 as a result of a vehicular accident. Atty. Gregorio E. Maunahan was a notary public commissioned in Laguna who, in 2009, notarized documents purportedly executed by Anicia in connection with a petition for replacement of the allegedly lost owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-246114.

On May 12, 2009, a Petition for replacement of the lost original duplicate owner's copy of TCT No. T-246114 was filed before Branch 25, Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, docketed as L.R.C. CAD. Case No. B-4300. The petition was filed by a certain Anicia C. Garcia, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ma. Nida N. Garcia (Nida), with Atty. Gregorio E. Maunahan signing as counsel. Attached to the petition were a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and an Affidavit of Loss (AOL), both allegedly executed by Anicia on March 13, 2009 and notarized by Atty. Maunahan, purportedly recorded in his notarial register as Doc. No. 2093 and Doc. No. 2094, respectively. The petition's Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, dated May 11, 2009, was likewise notarized by Atty. Maunahan and supposedly recorded as Doc. No. 3698.

On August 10, 2009, the RTC, Biñan granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna to issue a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-246114 in favor of Anicia. Fonacier filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the real Anicia C. Garcia had executed in his favor a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage of the same property, that the duplicate copy of the title was not lost but in the custody of his attorney-in-fact, and that the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification were spurious because the real Anicia had already died on June 7, 1999. Finding the motion meritorious, the RTC, Biñan reversed its earlier ruling and dismissed the petition on September 1, 2009.

On July 30, 2014, Fonacier filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Maunahan, alleging that the respondent made it appear that Nida was duly authorized to file the petition by preparing falsified documents. Fonacier asserted that it was highly improbable for Anicia to have executed the documents, considering she had died a decade earlier. Fonacier further pointed out, through certifications from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Calamba City, that the documents were not actually recorded in Atty. Maunahan's notarial register under the stated document numbers; instead, a Certificate of Redemption, a Contract of Lease, and a Bilihan ng Bahay appeared under those same inscriptions. Fonacier also filed three counts of falsification of a public document by a notary public before Branch 34, RTC, Calamba City.

For his part, Atty. Maunahan denied the allegations, maintaining that he notarized the documents in good faith, believing the woman who appeared before him was the real Anicia. He narrated that on March 13, 2009, a woman claiming to be Anicia, together with Nida and a certain Celia Mallo, went to his law office. The alleged Anicia, who introduced herself as a lieutenant colonel in the Nurse Corps, requested the preparation of the AOL and SPA. Atty. Maunahan stated that he asked for proof of identity and was presented community tax certificates (CTCs) by both women, as well as a copy of an SPA executed on December 14, 1992 by Anicia appointing Nida as attorney-in-fact. On May 11, 2009, the two women returned with a certified copy of TCT No. T-246114 bearing annotations of the SPA and AOL, and Atty. Maunahan prepared and notarized the petition and Verification and Certification for a lawyer's fee of PHP 35,000.00. He admitted that he failed to record the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification in his notarial register, attributing the omission to staff negligence, but claimed he had rectified the failure by submitting the documents to the OCC-RTC, Calamba. He likewise asserted that he had been acquitted in the three criminal falsification cases.

• Falsified Documents: Fonacier alleged that Atty. Maunahan made it appear that Nida was duly authorized to file the petition by preparing a falsified SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification, when the real Anicia C. Garcia had already died on June 7, 1999.
• Failure to Ascertain Identity: Fonacier contended that by placing his signature and notarial seal on the documents, Atty. Maunahan falsely stated that the alleged Anicia who appeared before him was "known to him" to be the same person who executed the documents, even though he did not ascertain her identity.
• Falsification of Notarial Register: Fonacier pointed out that the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification were not actually entered in Atty. Maunahan's notarial register, as evidenced by certifications from the OCC-RTC, Calamba showing that different documents (a Certificate of Redemption, a Contract of Lease, and a Bilihan ng Bahay) appeared under the same document numbers, page numbers, and book numbers.
• Use of Spurious Documents: Fonacier asserted that despite their falsity, Atty. Maunahan made use of the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification in the petition he filed before the RTC, Biñan.

• Good Faith: Atty. Maunahan countered that the complaint must be dismissed because he notarized the documents believing in good faith that the alleged Anicia who appeared before him was the real Anicia C. Garcia, having been presented with CTCs and an officer's identification card stating she was a lieutenant colonel in the Nurse Corps.
• Reliance on Prior SPA: Atty. Maunahan maintained that he was convinced of the identities of the alleged Anicia and Nida because they also showed him a copy of an SPA executed on December 14, 1992 by Anicia, appointing Nida as attorney-in-fact, acknowledged before a certain Atty. Manuel Bautista.
• Staff Negligence: Atty. Maunahan admitted that he failed to record the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification in his notarial register, but attributed this to the negligence of his staff, and claimed he had already rectified the failure by submitting the documents to the OCC-RTC, Calamba.
• Acquittal in Criminal Cases: Atty. Maunahan asserted that he had already been acquitted on the three counts of falsification of a public document filed against him by Fonacier before the RTC, Calamba.
• Humanitarian Grounds: Atty. Maunahan invoked his age (77 years), his service to the Laguna IBP Chapter, his 35 years of combined service to the AFP and PNP, and the fact that this was his first offense of this nature.

• Independence of Proceedings: Whether Atty. Maunahan's acquittal in the criminal falsification cases bars or affects the resolution of the administrative disciplinary case against him.
• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Maunahan should be held administratively liable for notarizing the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification without ascertaining the identity of the person who sought notarization, and for failing to record those notarial acts in his notarial register.

• Independence of Proceedings: No. The acquittal in the criminal cases has no bearing on the administrative disciplinary case, as the two proceedings are sui generis in nature and differ in purpose, parties, and evidentiary thresholds.
• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. Maunahan was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPRA for notarizing documents without requiring competent evidence of identity and for failing to record notarial acts in his notarial register, both done in bad faith.

• Independence of Proceedings: Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis — neither purely civil nor purely criminal — involving investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. The Court's disciplinary authority over members of the Bar is sourced from Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution and constitutes plenary power to preserve the purity of the legal profession. As held in Laurel vs. Delute, a lawyer's administrative misconduct may proceed independently from criminal and civil cases because of the basic and fundamental differences among these proceedings in terms of purpose (penal liability versus fitness to practice), parties (the State versus the complainant as mere witness), and evidentiary thresholds (proof beyond reasonable doubt versus substantial evidence). A finding in one type of case has no binding determinative effect on the disposition of another, and each proceeding must be adjudged according to its own peculiar and distinct parameters.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization is not an empty or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Notarial Rules requires that the signatory be personally present at the time of notarization and be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Rule II, Section 12, as amended in 2008, defines "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual (such as a passport, driver's license, PRC ID, etc.), or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. A CTC is no longer included in this enumeration because it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner and can be easily obtained. Atty. Maunahan notarized the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification relying only on a CTC and a 1992 SPA, without requiring competent evidence of identity; the real Anicia had been dead since 1999 and could not have executed the documents. His claim of good faith based on an alleged lieutenant colonel ID was unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, under Rule VI, Section 2 of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary must record every notarial act in the notarial register. Atty. Maunahan admitted he failed to do so, and the certifications showed that entirely different documents occupied the same entries in his register. His excuse of staff negligence was unsupported and deemed a feeble attempt to cover up his infraction. These violations of the 2004 Notarial Rules also constituted violations of Canon II, Section 1 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon III, Section 2 (requiring lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws) of the CPRA. Under Canon VI, Section 33(p) of the CPRA, violating the Notarial Rules in bad faith is a serious offense. Applying the penalties prescribed in Canon VI, Sections 37(a), 39, and 40, and guided by precedents in Bartolome vs. Basilio and Lopez vs. Mata, the Court imposed separate penalties for each violation, considering the respondent's age, service, outright admission, and first-offense status as mitigating circumstances.

• Sui generis nature of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, undertaken solely for public welfare and to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The complainant is deemed a mere witness, and no private interest or redress is involved. The Court exercises plenary disciplinary authority over members of the Bar, sourced from Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution.

• Independence of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings — A lawyer's administrative misconduct may proceed independently from criminal and civil cases, regardless of whether they involve similar or overlapping factual circumstances. This stems from the basic and fundamental differences among these proceedings in terms of purpose, parties, and evidentiary thresholds: criminal actions require proof beyond reasonable doubt and are instituted in the name of the State; civil actions require preponderance of evidence and involve private parties; administrative disciplinary proceedings require only substantial evidence and are prosecuted for public welfare. A finding in one type of case has no binding determinative effect on the others.

• Notarization as an act of substantive public interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit upon its face. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to and must not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.

• Competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules — Defined under Rule II, Section 12, as amended in 2008, as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual (e.g., passport, driver's license, PRC ID, NBI clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, GSIS e-card, SSS card, etc.), or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. A CTC is no longer considered competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner and can be easily obtained.

• Duty to record notarial acts in the notarial register — Under Rule VI, Section 2 of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary must record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number, page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, name and address of credible witnesses, fee charged, address where notarization was performed, and any other relevant circumstance. Failure to record is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not.

• Breaches of Notarial Rules as violations of the CPRA — A breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the CPRA, as an erring lawyer who is remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer, committing an act of falsehood and engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, in breach of Canon II, Section 1 and Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA.

• "disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit." — This passage defines the essential character of administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, establishing the conceptual basis for the independence of such proceedings from criminal and civil cases.

• "the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial register is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not" — This formulation, quoted from Atty. Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, articulates the gravity of a notary's failure to record notarial acts, equating it with falsification of the notarial process itself.

• "a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice would also constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an erring lawyer who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well. He does not only fail to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and its legal processes, but he also commits an act of falsehood and engages in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct." — This passage establishes the doctrinal link between notarial misconduct and ethical violations under the legal profession's code of responsibility, making clear that notarial infractions carry professional discipline consequences beyond the notarial commission itself.

• Laurel vs. Delute, 880 Phil. 474 (2020) — Controlling precedent cited for the proposition that a lawyer's administrative misconduct may proceed independently from criminal and civil cases, and that findings in one type of case have no determinative bearing on the others, owing to the fundamental differences in purpose, parties, and evidentiary thresholds among the three types of proceedings.

• Atty. Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015) — Followed as the controlling precedent for the penalty imposed on a lawyer-notary public who notarized a document where one of the signatories was already dead and failed to record the notarial act in his notarial register; in that case, the Court imposed revocation of notarial commission, suspension from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

• Lopez vs. Atty. Mata, 878 Phil. 1 (2020) — Followed as precedent for the penalty imposed on a lawyer-notary public who notarized a document on the basis only of a CTC as proof of identity; the Court imposed revocation of notarial commission, suspension from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

• Triol vs. Atty. Agcaoili, Jr., 834 Phil. 154 (2018) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, and that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

• Vda. de Miller vs. Atty. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449 (2015) — Cited for the principle that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to and should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.

• Ladrera vs. Atty. Osorio, 869 Phil. 1 (2020) — Cited for the principle that the required personal appearance and competent evidence of identity allow the notary public to verify the identity of the principal and determine whether the instrument is his or her voluntary act.

• Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, 816 Phil. 820 (2017) — Cited for the proposition that the enumeration of competent evidence of identity in the 2004 Notarial Rules no longer includes CTCs, given the ease with which a CTC could be obtained.

• Orenia III vs. Atty. Gonzales, 887 Phil. 520 (2020) — Cited for the rule on the penalties to be imposed on a notary public who fails to discharge his duties: (1) revocation of notarial commission, if existing; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law, with the terms varying based on the circumstances of each case.

• Article VIII, Section 5(5), 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Cited as the constitutional source of the Court's plenary disciplinary authority over members of the Bar.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not (1) in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization, and (2) personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to find that Atty. Maunahan failed to comply with this requirement by relying on a CTC, which is not competent evidence of identity.

• Rule II, Section 12, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (as amended, February 19, 2008) — Defines "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. Applied to determine that a CTC does not qualify as competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner.

• Rule VI, Section 2, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number, page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, name and address of credible witnesses, fee charged, address of notarization, and any other relevant circumstance. Applied to find that Atty. Maunahan's admitted failure to record the SPA, AOL, and Verification and Certification, compounded by the fact that different documents occupied the same entries, constituted a grave violation.

• Canon II, Section 1, CPRA — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to find that Atty. Maunahan's notarial violations constituted such conduct.

• Canon III, Section 2, CPRA — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. Applied to find that Atty. Maunahan's notarial violations constituted a breach of this duty.

• Canon VI, Section 33(p), CPRA — Classifies violating the Notarial Rules in bad faith as a serious offense.

• Canon VI, Section 37(a), CPRA — Prescribes the sanctions for a serious offense: disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00.

• Canon VI, Sections 39 and 40, CPRA — Govern the manner of imposition of penalties (allowing adjustment for aggravating and mitigating circumstances) and the penalty for multiple offenses arising from separate acts or omissions in a single proceeding (imposing separate penalties for each offense, with the possibility of disbarment if the aggregate exceeds five years of suspension or PHP 1,000,000.00 in fines).

Lazaro-Javier (Acting Chairperson), M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred. Leonen, SAJ (Chairperson), was on leave but left his vote pursuant to Section 4, Rule 12 of the SC Internal Rules.