Kiener vs. Amores

A notary public who notarizes a document that carries only a printed or scanned signature, without adducing proof that the signatory physically appeared at the time of notarization, violates the mandatory requirement of personal appearance under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; the simultaneous failure to indicate the notarial commission serial number in the notarial certificate compounds the infraction. Both violations constitute a breach of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, subjecting the lawyer to revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public.

Atty. Ricardo R. Amores served as private prosecutor for Pado’s Divecamp Resort Corporation in a criminal case for Estafa against John Paul Kiener pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Lapu‑Lapu City, Cebu. A Secretary’s Certificate, executed by Irene Medalla as Corporate Secretary and authorizing the chairman of the board to file the criminal complaint on the corporation’s behalf, was attached to the complaint‑affidavit. Atty. Amores notarized that Secretary’s Certificate. Kiener thereafter filed an administrative complaint asserting that the notarization was defective and that Atty. Amores had failed to observe the basic requirements of the notarial rules.

• Nature of the Action: Administrative complaint for imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Ricardo R. Amores for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canons 1, 10, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Criminal Case Background: Complainant John Paul Kiener was the accused in Criminal Case No. R‑21884 for Estafa pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Lapu‑Lapu City, Cebu. Atty. Amores acted as private prosecutor for the offended party, Pado’s Divecamp Resort Corporation.
• The Notarized Document: Irene Medalla, Corporate Secretary of the corporation, executed a Secretary’s Certificate dated July 18, 2007, authorizing Chairman Cho Chang Je to file the criminal complaint on the corporation’s behalf. Atty. Amores, then a commissioned notary public, notarized the certificate, which was subsequently attached to the Complaint‑Affidavit in the criminal case.
• Alleged Defects: Complainant alleged that the Secretary’s Certificate was defective and improperly notarized because: (a) Atty. Amores failed to indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial certificate; and (b) Irene Medalla’s signature appeared to be printed or scanned—a digital reproduction—indicating that she could not have been physically present before Atty. Amores at the time of notarization.
• Respondent’s Defense: Atty. Amores maintained that Medalla signed the certificate in his presence. He argued that the use of a printed or scanned signature does not per se violate the Rules on Notarial Practice and that it was common practice for a signatory to sign only one original copy and thereafter reproduce the originally signed copy to the desired number of copies before notarization. He further contended that the matters complained of should have been raised as a defense in the criminal case and that the administrative complaint was a form of harassment.
• IBP Findings: The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint, ruling that Medalla indeed appeared before Atty. Amores, that the presumption of regularity attached to the notarial act had not been rebutted, and that complainant lacked personal knowledge of the events.
• Supreme Court Examination: The Court’s own scrutiny of the document confirmed that Medalla’s signature on the Secretary’s Certificate attached to the complaint‑affidavit was merely printed—not an original handwritten signature. Atty. Amores presented no proof that Medalla was physically in his presence during the signing and notarization. The Court also noted that the serial number of Atty. Amores’s notarial commission was omitted from the concluding part of the notarial certificate.

• Violation of Physical Presence Requirement: Complainant argued that the printed or scanned nature of Irene Medalla’s signature on the Secretary’s Certificate established that she could not have appeared personally before Atty. Amores, in violation of Rule IV, Section 2 of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Defective Notarial Certificate: Complainant pointed out that Atty. Amores omitted the serial number of his notarial commission from the notarial certificate, contrary to the form prescribed by the Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Complainant contended that the foregoing notarial infractions constituted violations of Rule 1.01 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), Rule 10.01 (prohibition against falsehood and misleading the court), and Rule 19.01 (duty to employ only fair and honest means), read together with Canons 1, 10, and 19 of the CPR.

• Actual Physical Appearance: Respondent countered that Irene Medalla personally signed the Secretary’s Certificate in his presence and that her signature on the document, even if reproduced, did not by itself prove a violation of the notarial rules.
• Common Practice: Respondent maintained that it was standard practice for the signatory to sign a single original copy, after which the signed page was reproduced to produce multiple copies before notarization.
• Procedural Objection and Harassment: Respondent claimed that the alleged defects were matters that could be raised as a defense in the criminal case and should not be the basis of an administrative complaint. He asserted that the filing of the complaint, given another pending administrative case against him, constituted a personal attack and harassment.

• Physical Presence: Whether Atty. Amores violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Secretary’s Certificate when the signatory’s signature was merely printed or scanned and there was no evidence that she personally appeared before him.
• Notarial Certificate Form: Whether Atty. Amores’s failure to indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial certificate constituted a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether the proven notarial violations constituted a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1 and Rule 1.01.

• Physical Presence: The requirement of physical presence was violated. A jurat under Rule II, Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial Practice mandates that the signatory (a) appear in person before the notary public, (b) be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, (c) sign the instrument in the notary’s presence, and (d) take an oath or affirmation. Rule IV, Section 2(b) reinforces this by prohibiting a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. The Court found that the Secretary’s Certificate bore only a printed, non‑original signature, a fact Atty. Amores admitted. No evidence was presented to prove that Medalla physically appeared and affixed her signature in his presence. The lack of an original handwritten signature on the document, coupled with the absence of proof of personal appearance, demonstrated that the signatory had signed elsewhere, scanned the document, and transmitted it electronically for printing, reproduction, and notarization—an act that falls short of the strict personal appearance requirement. The presumption of regularity was overcome by the patent infirmity on the face of the document itself.
• Notarial Certificate Form: The omission of the serial number of the notarial commission from the notarial certificate was a clear violation of Rule VIII, Section 2 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which enumerates the mandatory contents of the concluding part of a notarial certificate, including “the serial number of the commission of the notary public.”
• Code of Professional Responsibility: The notarial violations amounted to a failure to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes, contrary to Canon 1 of the CPR, and constituted unlawful and dishonest conduct prohibited by Rule 1.01 of Canon 1. Having breached the Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Amores simultaneously transgressed his ethical duties as a lawyer.
• Penalty: Consistent with recent jurisprudence, a notary public who fails to discharge notarial duties or comply with the Rules on Notarial Practice faces revocation of the current notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The Court imposed revocation of Atty. Amores’s existing notarial commission, if any, and disqualification from being reappointed for a period of two years. The use of a community tax certificate (CTC) as competent evidence of identity was not penalized because the notarial act occurred in 2007, before the 2008 amendment prohibiting CTCs took effect, as clarified in Baylon v. Almo.

• Notarization as a substantive public act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and entitles it to full faith and credit upon its face. The public’s confidence in the integrity of notarized documents obliges a notary public to observe with utmost care the basic requirements of notarial duties. (Tabao v. Lacaba)
• Personal appearance requirement for a jurat — Under Rule II, Section 6 and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must not notarize a document unless the person who executed it personally appears, is identified through competent evidence of identity, signs the instrument in the notary’s presence, and takes the requisite oath or affirmation. The absence of the actual executor prevents the notary public from verifying the genuineness of the signature and from ascertaining that the document is the party’s free and voluntary act. (Prospero v. Delos Santos)
• Effect of a printed or scanned signature — A document that bears only a printed or scanned signature, without any original handwritten signature on the copy notarized, indicates that the signatory was not physically present at the time of notarization. The notary public’s defense that the signatory signed one original and copies were reproduced without securing the signatory’s fresh signature on each copy does not cure the defect when no proof of the signatory’s actual appearance is adduced. The burden rests on the notary public to prove compliance.
• Mandatory contents of the notarial certificate — Rule VIII, Section 2 requires the notarial certificate to include, among others, the serial number of the notary public’s commission. Failure to include the serial number constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Consequences of notarial violations under the CPR — A lawyer’s failure to comply with the Rules on Notarial Practice constitutes a breach of Canon 1 (duty to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 1.01 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• “It is settled that ‘notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.’”
• “[A] notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or deed.” — Quoting Prospero v. Delos Santos, capturing the core rationale behind the personal appearance requirement.

• Tabao v. Lacaba, A.C. No. 9269, March 13, 2019 (citing Triol v. Agcaoili, Jr., A.C. No. 12011, June 26, 2018) — Relied upon for the principle that notarization is a substantive public act entitled to full faith and credit, and that notaries public must observe the basic requirements with utmost care.
• Prospero v. Delos Santos, A.C. No. 11583, December 3, 2019 — Cited as authority for the strict requirement that the signatory must personally appear before the notary public to enable verification of the genuineness of the signature and the voluntariness of the act.
• Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11, 2019 (citing Iringan v. Gumangan, 816 Phil. 820, and Baysac v. Aceron‑Papa, 792 Phil. 635) — Followed to determine the appropriate penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment.
• Ko v. Uy‑Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584, March 6, 2019 — Followed for the ruling that violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a breach of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
• Baylon v. Almo, 578 Phil. 238 (2008) — Distinguished; clarified that community tax certificates ceased to be competent evidence of identity only after the 2008 amendment to the Rules on Notarial Practice, so the use of a CTC in 2007 did not constitute a violation.

• Rule II, Section 6, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02‑8‑13‑SC) — Defines “jurat” and enumerates the requisites: (a) personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public, (b) personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity, (c) signing in the notary’s presence, and (d) oath or affirmation. Applied to establish the mandatory character of personal appearance in the jurat notarized by Atty. Amores.
• Rule IV, Section 2(b), ibid. — Prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known or properly identified. Breach of this provision was a principal ground for liability.
• Rule VIII, Section 2, ibid. — Sets forth the mandatory contents of the concluding part of the notarial certificate, including the serial number of the commission. The omission of the serial number was an independent violation.
• Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 1 requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes; Rule 1.01 prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The notarial violations were treated as transgressions of these ethical norms.

Leonen, J. (Chairperson), Inting, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.