Gaddi vs. Velasco

A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties, including requiring the personal presence of the signatory and ascertaining identity through competent evidence of identity; failure to do so, affixing a signature on an incomplete notarial certificate, and dishonesty in pleadings constitute violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The complainant was the Operations and Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS) when she broached the idea of opening a branch in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to Angelo Lozada, the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS. The respondent was a commissioned notary public for Makati City from 4 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice govern the duties and responsibilities of notaries public in the performance of their functions.

Imelda Cato Gaddi was the Operations and Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS) when she broached the idea of opening a branch of BLSS in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to Angelo Lozada, the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS. Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi opened a BLSS in Solano. However, in April 2010, Angelo informed the management that he did not authorize a BLSS in Solano. Upon Angelo's complaint, the police officers apprehended the swimming instructors of BLSS in Solano, namely: Jonathan Lagamzon Lozare, Katherine Agatha Gaddi Ancheta, who is Gaddi's niece, and Lorenz Ocampo Gaddi, who is Gaddi's grandson.

At past 10:00 a.m. of 22 April 2010, while inside the BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, Gaddi was informed of the apprehension of the swimming instructors. Worried, Gaddi pleaded with Angelo's wife, Kristina Marie, and the BLSS Programs Manager Aleza Garcia for permission to leave the office and proceed to Nueva Vizcaya. Instead of acceding to her plea, they commanded Gaddi to make a handwritten admission that the BLSS in Solano was unauthorized. They warned Gaddi that she cannot leave the office without the handwritten admission. Thus, Gaddi conceded in doing the handwritten admission and left the office before 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Subsequently, Gaddi found out that Angelo filed a complaint against her regarding the BLSS in Solano using her handwritten admission, which was already notarized by Velasco.

Gaddi filed the present complaint against Velasco for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3. Gaddi denied that she personally appeared before Velasco to have her handwritten admission notarized. She alleged that she did not consent to its notarization nor did she personally know him, give any competent evidence of identity or sign the notarial register.

In his comment dated 17 September 2010, Velasco alleged that he was commissioned notary public for Makati City from 4 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. He alleged that Gaddi appeared before him in his notarial office in Makati City on 22 April 2010 and requested for the notarization of a four-page handwritten document. He ascertained Gaddi's identity through two identification cards – her BLSS ID and Tax Identification Number (TIN) ID, and that the document was her own. Thereafter, he notarized the document and recorded it in his notarial register as Doc. No. 130, Page No. 27, Book No. 192, Series of 2010. Velasco insisted that he duly complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and it was Gaddi's complaint, which was notarized by a fake notary public. Velasco claimed that Gaddi only denied having the document notarized when she found out that Angelo used the document against her.

The Investigating Commissioner gave more credence to Gaddi's statement that she did not personally appear before Velasco to have her handwritten admission notarized. The Investigating Commissioner found it contradictory to logic and human experience that Gaddi went first to Makati City to have her self-incriminating handwritten admission notarized before proceeding to Nueva Vizcaya. The Investigating Commissioner also believed Gaddi's statement that the identification cards presented by Velasco were computer-generated from the BLSS office, since the portion of the notarial certificate listing the evidence of identity was left blank. As to Velasco's claim that Gaddi's complaint had a fake notary public, the Investigating Commissioner found it unsubstantiated.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Gaddi argued that Velasco violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, denying that she personally appeared before him to have her handwritten admission notarized.
• Lack of Consent and Identity: Gaddi alleged that she did not consent to the notarization, did not personally know Velasco, did not give any competent evidence of identity, and did not sign the notarial register.

• Compliance with Notarial Rules: Velasco argued that Gaddi appeared before him in his notarial office in Makati City on 22 April 2010 and requested the notarization of a four-page handwritten document, and that he ascertained her identity through two identification cards – her BLSS ID and TIN ID.
• Fake Notary Public: Velasco insisted that he duly complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and that it was Gaddi's complaint which was notarized by a fake notary public, claiming that Gaddi only denied having the document notarized when she found out that Angelo used the document against her.

• Personal Appearance and Identity: Whether Velasco violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the document without the personal appearance of Gaddi and without ascertaining her identity through competent evidence of identity.
• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: Whether Velasco violated Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by affixing his signature on an incomplete notarial certificate.
• Dishonesty in Pleadings: Whether Velasco's claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented identification cards, contradicted by the unfilled spaces in the notarial certificate, constituted dishonesty in his pleadings.

• Personal Appearance and Identity: Yes. Velasco failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, that is, to require the presence of Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed involuntarily and refused to notarize the document. The unfilled spaces in the notarial certificate clearly establish that Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity of the signatory to the document.
• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: Yes. Velasco affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, which is prohibited under Rule IV, Section 5(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Dishonesty in Pleadings: Yes. Velasco's claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented two identification cards was contradicted by the notarial certificate itself, which had unfilled spaces for the evidence of identity, and he did not even present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations.

• Personal Appearance and Identity: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document is in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. The purpose of these requirements is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. In the present case, contrary to Velasco's claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented two identification cards as proof of her identity, the notarial certificate, in rubber stamp, itself indicates: "SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS APR 22, 2010 x x x AT MAKATI CITY. AFFIANT EXHIBITING TO ME HIS/HER C.T.C. NO._ISSUED AT/ON__." The unfilled spaces clearly establish that Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity of the signatory to the document. Velasco did not comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, that is, to require the presence of Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed involuntarily and refused to notarize the document.
• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: A notary public is prohibited from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. Velasco affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, as the portion listing the evidence of identity was left blank. Furthermore, Velasco did not even present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations. It is presumed that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, pursuant to Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court.
• Dishonesty in Pleadings: Velasco's claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented two identification cards was contradicted by the notarial certificate itself, which had unfilled spaces for the evidence of identity. For notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties as notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering these findings and previous rulings, Velasco should not only be disqualified for two years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

• Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act — Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that Velasco's failure to comply with the basic requirements of notarization constituted a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Presumption of suppressed evidence — It is presumed that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, pursuant to Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court. The Court applied this presumption when Velasco did not present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations.

• "Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act." — This passage establishes the foundational principle that notarization carries significant legal consequences and must be performed with utmost care, serving as the basis for the Court's strict application of the notarial rules.
• "The unfilled spaces clearly establish that Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity of the signatory to the document." — This passage identifies the specific evidence that proved Velasco's failure to comply with the basic requirements of notarization, directly supporting the finding of guilt.
• "Velasco did not comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, that is, to require the presence of Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed involuntarily and refused to notarize the document." — This passage articulates the core duty violated by Velasco and explains how compliance would have prevented the notarization of an involuntary document.

• Isenhardt vs. Real, A.C. No. 8254, 15 February 2012, 666 SCRA 20 — Controlling precedent for the penalty imposed, where a notary public who failed to discharge his duties was meted out the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.
• Angeles vs. Ibañez, 596 Phil. 99 (2009) — Cited as precedent for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, and for the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.
• Dela Cruz-Sillano vs. Pangan, 592 Phil. 219 (2008) — Cited for the purpose of the requirements of personal appearance and competent evidence of identity in notarization.
• Pantoja-Mumar vs. Flores, 549 Phil. 261 (2007) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, and for the penalty imposed.
• Gonzales vs. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345 (2005) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, and for the penalty imposed.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document is in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. The Court found that Velasco violated this provision by notarizing the document without ascertaining the identity of the signatory.
• Rule IV, Section 4(c), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Mandates that if the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act. The Court noted that had Velasco required Gaddi's presence, he could have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed involuntarily and refused to notarize the document.
• Rule IV, Section 5(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. The Court found that Velasco violated this provision by affixing his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate.
• Rule VI, Section 3(a), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that at the time of notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or mark the notary public's notarial register. The Court noted that Velasco did not present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court found that Velasco breached this canon.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court found that Velasco breached this rule through his dishonesty in his pleadings.
• Rule 131, Section 3(e), Rules of Court — Provides the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The Court applied this presumption when Velasco did not present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi's allegations.

Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., and Leonen, JJ., concurred. Villarama, Jr. was designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1767 dated 27 August 2014.