Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials

A jurat requires the affiant to sign the document in the presence of and take an oath before the notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths; a notary public who prepares and notarizes a jurat without the affiant's presence commits grave misconduct.

Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea was a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, and the questioned jurat was entered in Book 45 of his notarial register. Maximino Gamido y Buenaventura was the petitioner in G.R. No. 114829 against New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials; Atty. dela Rea knew Gamido and had handled cases involving NBP prisoners and guards. Notarial duties at issue are governed by public policy and Public Act No. 2103, which prescribes the manner of acknowledgments before notaries public.

Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea was a lawyer commissioned as a notary public for a long time, and the jurat in question was entered in Book 45 of his notarial register. Maximino Gamido y Buenaventura was the petitioner in G.R. No. 114829 against New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials. Atty. dela Rea knew Gamido and had handled cases involving NBP prisoners and guards; his office was across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, and he had been in and out of NBP.

On 19 April 1994, the jurat in Gamido's petition stated that Gamido subscribed and swore to the verification before Atty. dela Rea as notary public. Gamido did not appear before Atty. dela Rea, did not personally sign the document in his presence, and did not take his oath before him. The Supreme Court later issued a Resolution on 7 September 1994 requiring Atty. dela Rea to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear that Gamido had done so.

In his Explanation dated 23 December 1994 and received on 25 January 1995, Atty. dela Rea admitted that he executed the jurat without Gamido's presence. He claimed he acted in the honest belief that, because the instrument was a jurat and not an acknowledgment, it was permissible to do so. He said he knew Gamido before and after 19 April 1994, had attempted to have the document personally signed by him, but did not pursue the attempt because he had to observe NBP rules and regulations on visits. He also said he believed in good faith that he could contribute to the orderly administration of justice. The Gamido family used to come to his office and had sought his legal services, but he refused because he was preoccupied with other cases. On 13 December 1994, he received a letter from Gamido pleading for help and stating that he was suffering without fault and needed assistance. Atty. dela Rea apologized to the Court and assured it that he would be more careful and circumspect, that he intended no wrong, illegality, malice, or money, and that no amount or consideration would change his conviction.

The Court found Atty. dela Rea's explanation unsatisfactory. It noted that, as a notary public for a long time whose questioned jurat was entered in Book 45 of his notarial register, he should have known the similarities and differences between a jurat and an acknowledgment. It treated his spontaneous voluntary admission as a mitigating circumstance but still found that he had prepared the jurat without Gamido's presence, making it appear that Gamido personally signed the certification and took his oath before him when he did not.

• Grave Misconduct: Whether Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea is administratively liable for grave misconduct for preparing and notarizing the jurat in the petition without the presence of petitioner Maximino Gamido.
• Nature of Jurat: Whether a jurat requires the affiant to sign the document in the presence of and take an oath before the notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths.
• Defense of Good Faith and Acquaintance: Whether Atty. dela Rea's belief that a jurat does not require the affiant's presence, and his prior acquaintance with Gamido, excuse or mitigate his administrative liability.

• Grave Misconduct: Yes. Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public when he prepared the jurat without Gamido's presence, making it appear that Gamido personally signed and swore before him.
• Nature of Jurat: Yes. A jurat requires the affiant to sign the document in the presence of and take an oath before the notary public or other authorized officer; the affiant's presence is indispensable.
• Defense of Good Faith and Acquaintance: No. His belief that presence was unnecessary because the instrument was a jurat rather than an acknowledgment was patently baseless, and prior acquaintance or friendship provided no excuse; his spontaneous voluntary admission was considered in mitigation.

• Grave Misconduct: As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the petition in Gamido's absence, thereby making it appear that Gamido personally signed the certification and took his oath before him when in truth he did not. Notarial duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest; notaries public and others authorized to administer oaths or take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties of their offices. His prior acquaintance and friendship with Gamido provided no excuse; if he wanted to accommodate a friend inside prison, he could have gone to Gamido's cell, since he admitted having been in and out of NBP. His explanation was unsatisfactory, but his spontaneous voluntary admission was considered in mitigation. The penalty was a fine of P5,000, without prejudice to criminal prosecution, and a warning that future same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
• Nature of Jurat: A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him; it is not part of a pleading but merely evidences that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the petition began with "subscribed and sworn to before me." To subscribe means to write underneath or sign at the end of a document; to swear means to put on oath or declare on oath the truth of a pleading. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. The Court contrasted this with an acknowledgment under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, which also requires the party acknowledging to appear before the notary public or authorized officer, who certifies that the person is known to him, is the same person who executed the instrument, and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. The claim that Gamido's presence was unnecessary because the instrument was a jurat and not an acknowledgment was patently baseless; if that had been Atty. dela Rea's belief since his first commission, he had been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat.
• Defense of Good Faith and Acquaintance: Atty. dela Rea's prior acquaintance and friendship with Gamido provided no excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If he were faithful to his duty and wanted to accommodate a friend inside prison, he could have gone to the latter's cell, since he openly admitted he had been in and out of NBP, not only because his office was across the Muntinlupa Municipal Building but because he handled cases involving NBP prisoners and guards. His explanation was unsatisfactory; however, his spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation of his liability. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000 for grave misconduct, without prejudice to criminal prosecution, and warned him that future same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

• Jurat Requires Presence and Oath — A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It is not part of a pleading but merely evidences that the affidavit was properly made. In a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. The Court applied this rule to find Atty. dela Rea administratively liable because he notarized the jurat without Gamido's presence.
• Acknowledgment Requires Presence — Under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, an acknowledgment must be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law, and the notary or officer must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him, is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. The party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or authorized officer. The Court used this to reject the claim that presence was unnecessary for a jurat because it was not an acknowledgment.
• Notarial Duties Are Impressed with Public Interest — Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices; such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest. The Court applied this principle to hold that Atty. dela Rea's prior acquaintance and friendship with Gamido provided no excuse for notarizing the jurat without his presence.
• Grave Misconduct by a Notary Public — A lawyer commissioned as a notary public commits grave misconduct when he agrees to prepare a jurat in the absence of the affiant, thereby making it appear that the affiant personally signed the certification and took his oath before him when in truth he did not. The Court imposed a P5,000 fine, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.
• Spontaneous Voluntary Admission in Mitigation — A spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation of liability. The Court considered Atty. dela Rea's admission in mitigation but still found his explanation unsatisfactory and imposed the fine.

• "Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths." — This states the core rule violated by Atty. dela Rea and defines the indispensable presence requirement for a jurat.
• "The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless." — This rejects the central defense raised by Atty. dela Rea and clarifies that the jurat-acknowledgment distinction does not dispense with the affiant's presence.
• "Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest." — This articulates the public-interest standard governing notarial duties and supports the finding of grave misconduct.
• "Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of petitioner Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter personally signed the certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the said petitioner did not." — This is the Court's definitive finding of administrative liability and the ratio for the penalty imposed.

• Theobald vs. Chicago Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 208 — Cited in the decision for the definition of a jurat as that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him.
• Young vs. Wooden, 265 SW 24, 204 Ky. 694 — Cited for the proposition that a jurat is not part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made.

• Section 1, Public Act No. 2103 — Provides that an acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law in the place where the act is done; the notary or officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed; the certificate shall be made under his official seal if required. The Court cited this to show that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or authorized officer, and to reject Atty. dela Rea's claim that the affiant's presence was unnecessary for a jurat because it was not an acknowledgment.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.