Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite vs. Atty. Raymund P. Guzman

A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarizes an instrument without competent evidence of the parties’ identities, unless the signatory is personally known to him and that fact is reflected in the acknowledgment; a belated presentation of identification and a claim of personal knowledge do not cure the defect. A third violation of the Notarial Rules warrants suspension from the practice of law for two years and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Complainants Florentino S. Unite and Miguel B. Torrices are the sole heirs of Herminigildo A. Unite and Odylon Unite Torrices, respectively, and are among the legal and compulsory heirs of Teodora A. Unite, who died intestate on January 6, 2005. Respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman is a member of the Bar and a notary public. The administrative complaint arises under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

Complainants Florentino S. Unite and Miguel B. Torrices are the sole heirs of Herminigildo A. Unite and Odylon Unite Torrices, respectively, and are legal and compulsory heirs of Teodora A. Unite, who died intestate on January 6, 2005. Teodora’s brother Herminigildo had an only child, Florentino; Miguel is the only heir of Odylon, son of Teodora’s sister Dominga Unite Torrices.

On November 24, 2010, respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman notarized a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos between Jose Unite Torrices, as donor, and his daughter Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices, as donee, covering a parcel of land described as Lot 2920, Pls-706, located in Poblacion Sta. Cruz, Ballesteros, Cagayan, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20432(S). The deed donated a 1,743-square-meter portion. The notarial acknowledgment was recorded under Doc. No. 166, Page No. 33, Book No. XLI, Series of 2010. The acknowledgment stated that the parties personally appeared and were known to respondent, but under Jose’s name only his Tax Identification Number appeared, while under the names of Lolita B. Torrices and Cecile there were no entries. Complainants alleged that respondent failed to require the parties to present competent evidence of their identities bearing their photographs and signatures.

Complainants further alleged that Jose fraudulently registered TCT No. T-20432(S) in his name because the transfer to him by the original owner, Teodora, was by virtue of a defectively notarized Deed of Donation Inter Vivos. Through false and malicious misrepresentation, Jose, in connivance with his wife Lolita and son Llewelyn John B. Torrices, executed the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos and illegally transferred ownership of a portion of the land to Cecile. According to complainants, respondent’s notarization of the defective deed violated his oath as a lawyer and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A Bureau of Immigration Certification dated July 21, 2017 confirmed that Cecile, who appeared to have signed and accepted the donation, was abroad on November 24, 2010.

On January 15, 2015, complainants filed before the Regional Trial Court of Ballesteros, Cagayan, a civil complaint for annulment of the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos affecting a portion of the property, the Deed of Absolute Sale affecting another portion, and Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-20432(S) and 034-2011000141, as well as liquidation/accounting and damages. The case was raffled to Branch 33.

Respondent denied the accusations and countered that the administrative case was meant only to harass him. He admitted notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale between Jose and Jimmy Concepcion involving a portion of the land covered by TCT No. T-20432(S). As for the remaining portion, he notarized the questioned Deed of Donation Inter Vivos. He claimed that he required the parties to individually present two current government-issued identification cards bearing their photographs. To support his compliance, he presented Jose’s Affidavit dated June 1, 2015, to which Jose’s Professional Regulation Commission License and Government Service Insurance System ID were attached. Respondent stated that after interviewing the parties, and with Jose declaring that he was the registered and lawful owner, he was convinced that the parties had the capacity to enter into the transaction. He prayed that the disbarment suit be dismissed or held in abeyance in view of the pending civil action.

• Failure to Require Competent Evidence of Identity: Complainants alleged that respondent failed to require the parties to the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos to present competent evidence of their identities bearing their photographs and signatures; the acknowledgment bore only Jose’s Tax Identification Number and no entries for Lolita and Cecile.
• Notarizing a Defective or Falsified Deed: Complainants alleged that respondent notarized a falsified Deed of Donation Inter Vivos, violating his oath as a lawyer and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Jose fraudulently registered TCT No. T-20432(S) because the transfer to him by Teodora was by a defectively notarized deed.
• Cecile’s Absence: Complainants maintained that Cecile could not have accepted the donation because she was abroad on November 24, 2010, as confirmed by the Bureau of Immigration Certification dated July 21, 2017.
• Penalty: Complainants opposed respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and reiterated that his infraction should merit the supreme penalty of disbarment.

• Harassment: Respondent denied the accusations and countered that the administrative case was meant only to harass him.
• Admitted Notarizations: Respondent admitted notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale between Jose and Jimmy Concepcion involving a portion of the land covered by TCT No. T-20432(S), and the questioned Deed of Donation Inter Vivos for the remaining portion.
• Compliance with Notarial Rules: Respondent claimed that he required the parties to individually present two current government-issued identification cards bearing their photographs; he interviewed them and was convinced of their capacity after Jose declared that he was the registered and lawful owner.
• Personal Knowledge and Substantial Compliance: Respondent asserted that he personally knew Jose, who frequently consulted his office, and that he substantially complied with the rules when the parties identified themselves as signatories.
• Pending Civil Case: Respondent prayed that the disbarment suit be dismissed or held in abeyance in view of the pending civil action involving the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos without requiring the parties to present competent evidence of identity.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Bureau of Immigration Certification: Whether the Bureau of Immigration Certification sufficiently established that Cecile was abroad when the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos was executed.
• Penalty: Whether respondent should be disbarred or otherwise sanctioned for his repeated violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. The acknowledgment did not bear competent proof of identity; only Jose’s Tax Identification Number appeared, and no entries appeared for Lolita and Cecile. Under Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, respondent failed to comply.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. By notarizing the deed without the parties’ competent proofs of identity, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Bureau of Immigration Certification: No. The certification was not given credence because of the substantial discrepancy between the name “Rosario, Cecile Yvonne Torrices” and the donee’s name “Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices,” which complainants did not explain or rectify.
• Penalty: Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for two years effective immediately and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. This was his third violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with public interest, converts a private document into a public document, and entitles the document to full faith and credence. A notary public must observe utmost care and inform himself of the facts he certifies. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary shall not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as identification based on 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 one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two such credible witnesses. Here, the acknowledgment portion did not bear the parties’ competent proof of identity; under Jose’s name only his Tax Identification Number appeared, while under Lolita’s and Cecile’s names there were no entries. Although a notary public may dispense with the presentation of competent proof of identity if the signatory is personally known to him, the phrase “personally known” means that the notary public has personal knowledge of the signatory’s personal circumstances independent of any representations made by the signatory immediately before or during the notarization. The acknowledgment did not state or prove that respondent personally knew Jose before or during the notarization. The same ruling in A.C. No. 12062 applies. Jose’s Affidavit dated June 1, 2015 did not exculpate respondent; it instead proved his failure to comply with the Rules. Had respondent ascertained the identities of the parties, he could have entered the same in the acknowledgment portion. The attachment of Jose’s identification cards to the Affidavit came too late and did not cure the defective notarization. Even if Jose’s belated proofs of identity were credited, Lolita and Cecile had no competent proof of their identities on record. Thus, respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: For notarizing the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos without the parties’ competent proofs of identity, respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. A notary public must uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes, and respondent’s failure to perform his notarial duties with care amounted to a violation of that duty.
• Bureau of Immigration Certification: The Court sustained the IBP-BOG’s refusal to give credence to the Bureau of Immigration Certification because of the clear discrepancy between the name “Rosario, Cecile Yvonne Torrices” indicated in the certification and the name “Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices” indicated as the donee in the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos. The discrepancy was substantial, and complainants did not explain it or have it rectified. The certification therefore did not sufficiently establish that Cecile was abroad when the deed was executed.
• Penalty: Respondent had already been found liable twice for notarizing instruments executed by the same Jose. In A.C. No. 12062, the Court found respondent guilty for failing to confirm Jose’s identity through competent evidence when he notarized a conveyance involving land covered by OCT No. 4059; respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. In A.C. No. 12061, the Court suspended respondent anew for six months, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale between Jose and Jimmy Concepcion while relying only on Jose’s Community Tax Certificate and not requiring both parties to present proper identification. The present case is respondent’s third violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows disbarment or suspension of an attorney for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the oath, or other grounds. In Sanchez vs. Inton, the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years for notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity of the person who sought notarization. In Traya, Jr. vs. Villamor, the Court declared the respondent perpetually disqualified after being found administratively liable for the second time for notarizing an affidavit without ascertaining the affiant’s identity. Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years and declared him perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

• Notarization as a public-interest act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with public interest, converts a private document into a public document, makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and entitles it 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. In this case, respondent’s failure to record competent identities undermined the integrity of the notarial system.
• Competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — A notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Competent evidence of identity refers to identification based on (a) 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, Professional Regulation Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System e-card, Social Security System card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons, or Department of Social Welfare and Development certification; 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. The acknowledgment in this case had only Jose’s Tax Identification Number and no entries for Lolita and Cecile, so no competent evidence of identity was presented.
• “Personally known” exception — A notary public may dispense with the presentation of competent proof of identity if the signatory is personally known to him. “Personally known” means the notary public has personal knowledge of the signatory’s personal circumstances independent of any representations made by the signatory immediately before or during the time of the notarization. The acknowledgment must state or show that the signatory is personally known; a mere statement that the signatory is “known to me” is insufficient. In this case, the acknowledgment did not state that respondent personally knew Jose, so the exception did not apply.
• Repeated violations of notarial rules and penalty — A lawyer who repeatedly notarizes instruments without ascertaining the identities of the parties violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A third violation warrants suspension from the practice of law for two years and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent had prior liabilities in A.C. Nos. 12061 and 12062, making the present case his third violation.

• "Through respondent’s acts, notarization became an empty, meaningless, and routinary act." — This passage describes the consequence of respondent’s repeated failure to observe the Notarial Rules and supports the Court’s conclusion that his conduct eroded public confidence in the notarial system.
• "The phrase “personally known” means the notary public has personal knowledge of the signatory’s personal circumstances independent of any representations made by the signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization." — This passage defines the exception that allows a notary public to dispense with competent evidence of identity and explains why respondent’s claim of personal knowledge did not excuse his failure to record competent proof of identity.
• "Here, respondent was utterly remiss in his duty when he notarized the subject instrument, sans the parties’ competent proofs of identity." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi on the notarial violation.
• "The Court therefore finds respondent guilty of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for the third time and We cannot afford to be lenient this time." — This passage explains the penalty rationale and the Court’s decision to impose a heavier sanction because of respondent’s repeated violations.

• Heir of Unite vs. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062, 834 Phil. 724 (2018) — Same parties; respondent was found liable for notarizing a conveyance by Jose over land covered by OCT No. 4059 without competent evidence of identity. The Court rejected the claim that personal knowledge or a Community Tax Certificate sufficed, and the ruling was applied to the present case because of the similarly defective acknowledgment.
• Heir of Unite vs. Guzman, A.C. No. 12061, October 16, 2019 — Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale between Jose and Jimmy Concepcion over TCT No. 20432(S) while relying only on Jose’s Community Tax Certificate and not requiring both parties to present proper identification.
• Sanchez vs. Inton, A.C. No. 12455, November 5, 2019 — The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years for notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity of the person who sought notarization; cited to support the two-year suspension imposed in this case.
• Traya, Jr. vs. Villamor, 466 Phil. 919 (2004) — The Court declared the respondent perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public after a second administrative liability for notarizing an affidavit without ascertaining the affiant’s identity; cited to support the perpetual disqualification imposed in this case.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — A notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Respondent notarized the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos without competent evidence and without stating that he personally knew the signatories.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines “competent evidence of identity” as identification based on 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 one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two such credible witnesses. The acknowledgment had only Jose’s Tax Identification Number and no entries for Lolita and Cecile, so no competent evidence was presented.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent’s defective notarization violated this rule.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the oath, or other grounds. Respondent’s repeated notarial violations warranted suspension and perpetual disqualification.

Justice Leonen (Chairperson), Justice M. Lopez, Justice J. Lopez, and Justice Kho, Jr., concurred.