Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan

A notary public who notarizes a document without competent evidence of identity of the parties, and who fails to submit his notarial report and duplicate original of the instrument to the Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The irregularity in notarization does not affect the validity of the document between the parties, but merely renders it a private instrument rather than a public one.

The administrative complaint was filed by Carmelo Iringan against Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan, a practicing attorney and notary public based in Tabuk, Kalinga. The complaint arose from a Contract of Lease that Atty. Gumangan prepared and notarized on December 30, 2005, between Carmelo and his brother Renato Iringan. The Contract of Lease became the principal subject of Civil Case No. 518-09 for Illegal Detainer and Ejectment with Damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tabuk, Kalinga, where the spouses Iringan sought to eject Carmelo from premises they claimed to own.

Carmelo Iringan filed an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan relative to Civil Case No. 518-09, an unlawful detainer case filed by spouses Renato and Carmen Iringan against Carmelo before the MTCC of Tabuk, Kalinga. The spouses Iringan alleged ownership of a 625-square-meter piece of land registered under Original Certificate of Title No. P-8864 in Renato's name, with a two-storey structure used as a restaurant called "Emilia's Kitchenette." Renato had acquired the right to operate the restaurant from his mother, Lourdes Iringan, through a Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments dated January 19, 1982, for P5,000.00. Pursuant to a Contract of Lease dated December 30, 2005, Renato leased the premises to Carmelo for one year at P5,000.00 monthly rental, with the contract notarized by Atty. Gumangan on the same date. The lease expired, but Carmelo continued possessing the premises upon the spouses' tolerance. In September 2008, the spouses demanded that Carmelo vacate, and a Final Demand dated April 1, 2009 was served on April 2, 2009, signed by Atty. Gumangan with Renato's approval. Carmelo refused to vacate, and after the barangay failed to settle the dispute on April 29, 2009, the spouses filed the ejectment case.

In his defense in the ejectment case, Carmelo claimed that the premises belonged to their late parents and descended to all siblings, making Renato a mere trustee. He alleged that the Contract of Lease was spurious, claiming he never signed it nor appeared before Atty. Gumangan for its notarization. The MTCC found the Contract of Lease valid, noting it was duly notarized as a public document entitled to faith and confidence, and that Carmelo offered no evidence to show it was spurious. The MTCC relied on Atty. Gumangan's Affidavit affirming that he prepared the document and that Carmelo and Renato signed in his presence, as well as the affidavits of instrumental witnesses Hilda Langgaman and Narcisa Padua. The MTCC also noted that the non-submission of Atty. Gumangan's notarial register did not preclude the fact of execution and notarization. The MTCC rendered judgment in favor of the spouses, ordering Carmelo to vacate, pay P5,000.00 monthly from April 2, 2009 with interest, P20,000.00 attorney's fees, and costs. The RTC affirmed in toto on May 25, 2010.

In his administrative complaint filed on April 5, 2010, Carmelo alleged that the Contract of Lease was spurious and fraudulent, that he never executed it nor appeared before Atty. Gumangan, and that the document was not filed with Atty. Gumangan's notarial report. He pointed to irregularities, including that Renato's community tax certificate (CTC) was issued on January 17, 2006, after the December 30, 2005 notarization, and that Carmelo's own CTC did not appear on the document. Atty. Gumangan admitted notarizing the contract but maintained that Carmelo and Renato personally executed it before him with two witnesses. He explained that the parties failed to present their CTCs at the time of notarization but promised to secure them later, with Renato obtaining his on January 17, 2006. Atty. Gumangan attached affidavits from Langgaman and Padua, from Carmelo's daughter-in-law Cathelyn attesting to rental payments, and from Renato confirming the execution. He also submitted an Affidavit from Margielyn Narag, Carmelo's employee, who recalled seeing Carmelo practicing his signature on a blank yellow pad paper while his niece commented that his signatures were now different.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that the existence and execution of the lease contract appeared to be an established fact, as recognized by the MTCC and RTC, and that Carmelo failed to deny that his signature was forged. However, the Commissioner held Atty. Gumangan responsible for executing a document that was incomplete due to the absence or questionable CTCs of the parties, and for his admitted failure to make his notarial report or include the contract in it. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to dismiss the disbarment complaint but revoke Atty. Gumangan's notarial commission and disqualify him from acting as notary public for two years.

• Spurious Contract: Carmelo alleged that the Contract of Lease was entirely spurious and fraudulent, claiming he never executed such instrument and did not appear before Atty. Gumangan for its due subscription under oath, and that he never entered into any lease contract with Renato whether verbal or in writing.

• Irregularities in Notarization: Carmelo pointed to the fact that Renato's CTC was issued on January 17, 2006, after the December 30, 2005 notarization, and that Carmelo's own CTC did not appear on the document, meaning he never appeared to execute it.

• Failure to File Notarial Report: Carmelo alleged that the Contract of Lease was never filed with Atty. Gumangan's notarial report with the Office of the Clerk of Court of Kalinga, as attested by the Sworn Affidavit of Atty. Mary Jane A. Andomang.

• Violation of Professional Responsibility: Carmelo argued that Atty. Gumangan's act of preparing and notarizing the Contract of Lease bespoke wanton and willful violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, as lawyers are mandated not to involve themselves in fraudulent and deceitful acts.

• Harassment and Ulterior Motive: Atty. Gumangan asserted that Carmelo instituted the administrative complaint to harass and embarrass him, and to extricate himself from the felonious acts of dispossessing his very own brother of the latter's property.

• Due Execution of Contract: Atty. Gumangan admitted notarizing the Contract of Lease but maintained that Carmelo and Renato personally executed it before him in the presence of two witnesses, Langgaman and Padua, who affirmed seeing Carmelo sign the contract.

• Explanation for CTC Irregularities: Atty. Gumangan explained that the parties failed to produce their CTCs on December 30, 2005, but promised to secure them at the earliest opportunity; Renato secured his on January 17, 2006, and entered its number, date, and place of issuance on the contract.

• Contract Not the Principal Subject: Atty. Gumangan argued that the Contract of Lease was not the principal subject of Civil Case No. 518-09, which was for Illegal Detainer and Ejectment, and that both the MTCC and RTC found the notarized contract to be a public document entitled to faith and confidence.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether Atty. Gumangan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of the parties.

• Notarial Report and Records: Whether Atty. Gumangan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to submit his notarial report and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease to the Clerk of Court.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Gumangan should be held administratively liable for his actions as a notary public and lawyer.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. Atty. Gumangan violated Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of Renato and Carmelo, as neither presented current identification documents nor were they identified by credible witnesses under oath.

• Notarial Report and Records: Yes. Atty. Gumangan violated Rule VI, Section 2(d) and (h) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to submit to the RTC Clerk of Court his Notarial Report and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease, as attested by Atty. Andomang's Affidavit and undisputed by Atty. Gumangan.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. Gumangan was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and was imposed the penalty of suspension of his notarial commission for two years.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which applied at the time of notarization, required the notary public to record in the notarial register the competent evidence of identity of each principal if the signatory was not personally known to the notary. Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) explicitly prohibited a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory was not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. The Rules defined "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 one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and personally knows the individual. Atty. Gumangan did not allege that he personally knew Renato and Carmelo, and there was no showing that they presented current identification documents. Langgaman and Padua witnessed the signing but did not attest under oath that they personally knew the parties, nor did they present their own documentary identification. The Court noted that CTCs no longer qualified as competent evidence of identity, citing Baylon vs. Almo, which recognized the ease with which CTCs could be obtained and their unreliability in proving identity. Worse, neither Renato nor Carmelo had CTCs at the time of notarization, yet Atty. Gumangan proceeded with notarization, allowing Renato to belatedly present his CTC weeks later while Carmelo presented none at all.

• Notarial Report and Records: Rule VI, Section 2(d) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice required that when the instrument is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy as part of his records, enter a brief description of its substance, give each entry a consecutive number, and retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court. Rule VI, Section 2(h) required that a certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the following month. Per Atty. Andomang's Affidavit dated September 3, 2009, Atty. Gumangan did not submit his Notarial Report and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease, and he did not dispute this nor provide any explanation for his failure. The Court cited Agagon vs. Bustamante, which stressed the importance of the notary public's compliance with the formalities for notarization, noting that notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act, and that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

• Administrative Liability: The Court held that Atty. Gumangan, in notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity and in failing to submit his notarial report and duplicate original, had been grossly remiss in his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer, undermining the faith and confidence of the public in the notarial act and notarized documents. The Court emphasized that a lawyer who is also commissioned as a notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, as such duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. However, the Court clarified that its judgment did not touch upon the execution and existence of the Contract of Lease, which the MTCC and RTC found sufficiently established based not solely on the irregularly-notarized contract but also on the consistent declarations of Renato, Atty. Gumangan, and the two impartial witnesses. The Court noted that any defect in notarization did not affect the validity of the Contract of Lease, which continued to be binding between the parties, as the absence of such formality would merely render the written contract a private instrument rather than a public one. The Court also stated that parties who appear before a notary public should not be expected to follow up on the submission of notarial reports and should not suffer the consequences of the notary's negligence.

• Competent Evidence of Identity — Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally known to him or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity, defined 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 one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and personally knows the individual. A community tax certificate does not qualify as competent evidence of identity because of the ease with which it can be obtained and its established unreliability in proving identity. In this case, Atty. Gumangan violated this rule by notarizing the Contract of Lease without any competent evidence of identity of the parties.

• Notarization as a Public Interest Function — Notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

• Effect of Defective Notarization on the Underlying Document — A defect in notarization does not affect the validity of the document between the parties; the absence of such formality would merely render the written contract a private instrument rather than a public one. The irregularity in notarization is not fatal to the validity of the contract, which continues to be binding between the parties to it.

• "A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act." — This passage from Agagon vs. Bustamante, quoted by the Court, articulates the substantive public interest in notarization and the duty of notaries to observe utmost care in performing their functions.

• "It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution." — This passage underscores the Court's rationale for holding notaries to a high standard of compliance with the formalities of notarization, as the integrity of notarial documents affects public confidence in the legal system.

• "Any defect in the notarization of the Contract of Lease did not affect its validity and it continued to be binding between the parties to the same, namely, Renato and Carmelo. The irregularity in the notarization was not fatal to the validity of the Contract of Lease since the absence of such formality would not necessarily invalidate the lease, but would merely render the written contract a private instrument rather than a public one." — This passage clarifies the distinction between the administrative liability of the notary and the validity of the underlying document, which remains binding between the parties despite the notarial defect.

• Baylon vs. Almo, 578 Phil. 238 (2008) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that a community tax certificate does not qualify as competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, given the ease with which CTCs can be obtained and their established unreliability in proving identity.

• Agagon vs. Bustamante, 565 Phil. 581 (2007) — Followed as a closely similar case involving a notary public who failed to include a copy of a Deed of Sale in his notarial report and failed to require parties to exhibit their community tax certificates; the Court stressed the importance of compliance with the formalities of notarization and the public interest in the integrity of notarial documents.

• Soriano vs. Basco, 507 Phil. 410 (2005) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer who is also commissioned as a notary public must discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, as such duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

• Pontigon vs. Heirs of Meliton Sanchez, G.R. No. 221513, December 5, 2016 — Cited for the proposition that a defect in notarization does not affect the validity of the document between the parties, but merely renders it a private instrument rather than a public one.

• Destreza vs. Riñoza-Plazo, 619 Phil. 775 (2009) — Cited for the principle that parties who appear before a notary public should not be expected to follow up on the submission of notarial reports and should not suffer the consequences of the notary's negligence.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity; Atty. Gumangan violated this provision by notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of identity of Renato and Carmelo.

• Rule VI, Section 2(a), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry 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 significant circumstance.

• Rule VI, Section 2(d), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that when the instrument is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy as part of his records, enter a brief description of its substance, give each entry a consecutive number, and retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.

• Rule VI, Section 2(h), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that a certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the following month.

• Rule II, Section 12, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — 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 one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes; Atty. Gumangan violated this canon by his gross negligence in performing his duties as a notary public.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Jardeleza, and Tijam, JJ., concurred.