Ko vs. Uy-Lampasa

A lawyer commissioned as a notary public who notarizes incomplete instruments, or instruments whose signatories did not personally appear and were identified only by Community Tax Certificate numbers, violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is subject to revocation of notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and suspension from law practice for six months.

Complainant Rolando T. Ko is the father of Jason U. Ko, while respondent Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa is a lawyer and notary public who acted as counsel for Jerry Uy, the vendee in deeds of sale involving property claimed by the Sultan siblings. The administrative complaint implicates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Bar Matter No. 850 on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. The dispute also intersects with separate cases concerning the genuineness of the deeds and an Estafa case filed against Jason and the Sultan siblings.

Rolando T. Ko filed an administrative complaint dated October 2, 2012 against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The complaint concerned two Deeds of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land in which Jerry Uy was the vendee and the Sultan siblings were the vendors, as well as an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale executed on October 20, 2011 between Ko’s son, Jason U. Ko, and all ten Sultan siblings. The Sultan siblings were Pablito, Anicieto, Cristita, Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, Lilia, Victoriano, and Lucita.

Respondent notarized two deeds of absolute sale. The deed dated October 12, 2011 and the deed dated October 19, 2011 were similar as to the vendee, the property covered, and the consideration, but differed as to the vendors. In the October 12 deed, the vendors named were Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, Lilia, Pablito, Victoriano, and Lucita, but only Leonardo, Lilia, and Victoriano signed. In the October 19 deed, Victoriano and Lucita were no longer included among the vendors, and among Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, Pablito, and Lilia, Pablito did not sign. Only eight of the ten Sultan siblings appeared in either deed; Anicieto and Cristita did not. By contrast, the Extra-judicial Settlement covering the same property contained the signatures and thumbmarks of all ten Sultan siblings.

Complainant alleged that respondent notarized the two purported deeds despite knowing that they were spurious. He also alleged that respondent, as counsel for Jerry, filed a malicious Estafa case against Jason and the Sultan siblings on the ground that the Extra-judicial Settlement was not published, although an Affidavit of Publication existed. Finally, complainant averred that respondent committed perjury and filed pleadings in court without the necessary Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance number, citing five pleadings dated December 7, 2011, February 25, 2012, March 8, 2012, and two dated March 27, 2012.

Respondent answered on November 10, 2012, denying any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She argued that the question of whether the deeds of sale were spurious was pending in separate cases before the courts and the City Prosecutor’s Office of Catbalogan City, Western Samar; that the determination of whether the Estafa case was malicious fell within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor’s Office conducting the preliminary investigation; and that she was exempted from MCLE compliance for the first to third compliance periods because she was a former judge, while she was processing compliance for the latest period. The parties thereafter submitted reply and rejoinders, held a mandatory conference on September 19, 2013, and submitted position papers.

The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent had notarized two documents of sale involving the same parties but containing different dates of notarization, and that she failed to indicate her MCLE compliance certificate number in various pleadings. The IBP Board likewise found that respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and B.M. 850. The records also showed that respondent completed the required MCLE units on May 19, 2012, was issued Certificates of Exemption for the first to third compliance periods on September 4, 2012, and that the counter-affidavits of Victoriano, Crispin, Felix, and Juanito Sultan stated they did not appear before respondent in October 2011. The genuineness of the deeds remained the subject of a pending civil case.

• Spurious Deeds and Improper Notarization: Complainant alleged that respondent notarized two purported deeds of sale between Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings despite knowing that the deeds were spurious; the deeds differed as to the vendors and lacked the signatures of several named vendors, while the Extra-judicial Settlement covering the same property contained the signatures and thumbmarks of all ten Sultan siblings.
• Malicious Estafa: Complainant claimed that respondent, as counsel for Jerry, filed a malicious Estafa case against Jason and the Sultan siblings on the allegation that the Extra-judicial Settlement was not published, when in fact it was published as evidenced by an Affidavit of Publication.
• Perjury and MCLE Non-Compliance: Complainant averred that respondent committed perjury and filed pleadings in court without the necessary MCLE compliance number, attaching several pleadings and manifestations in support of the claim.

• Pending Cases and Jurisdiction: Respondent countered that the matter of whether the deeds of sale were spurious was already the subject of separate cases pending in court and with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Catbalogan City, Western Samar, and that the determination of whether the Estafa case was malicious fell within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor’s Office conducting the preliminary investigation.
• MCLE Exemption and Compliance: Respondent argued that she was exempted from MCLE requirements for the first up to the third compliance periods because she was a former judge, and that she was currently in the process of complying with the requirement for the latest compliance period.
• No Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Respondent maintained that she had not violated any provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• MCLE Compliance: Whether respondent may be held administratively liable under B.M. 850 for failing to indicate her MCLE compliance number in pleadings filed during the fourth compliance period.
• Notarial Practice — Incomplete Instruments: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing deeds of absolute sale with incomplete signature and identification details.
• Notarial Practice — Personal Appearance and Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing deeds despite the vendors not personally appearing before her and by relying on Community Tax Certificate numbers as proof of identity.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent’s notarial violations also constituted violations of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years is proper.

• MCLE Compliance: No. An IBP member may be declared delinquent under B.M. 850 only after failing to comply within 60 days from a Notice of Non-Compliance; no notice was issued, respondent was exempted for the first to third periods, and she completed the fourth period on May 19, 2012.
• Notarial Practice — Incomplete Instruments: Yes. Section 6, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits notarizing a blank or incomplete instrument; respondent notarized deeds despite missing signatures and identification details.
• Notarial Practice — Personal Appearance and Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. Section 2(b), Rule IV prohibits a notarial act when the signatory did not personally appear or was not identified through competent evidence; a Community Tax Certificate number is not competent evidence of identity.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. The notarial violations also breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to obey the law and avoid unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Penalty: Yes. The IBP Board’s penalty was affirmed: six months’ suspension from law practice, immediate revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years, with a warning.

• MCLE Compliance: B.M. 850 requires IBP members to undergo continuing legal education. The first compliance period was from April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004; the second from April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007; the third from April 15, 2007 to April 14, 2010; and the fourth from April 15, 2010 to April 14, 2013. Complainant cited five pleadings dated December 7, 2011, February 25, 2012, March 8, 2012, and two dated March 27, 2012, all falling under the fourth compliance period. Respondent explained that she was exempted from the first to third compliance periods until she resigned as a judge in March 2010, and that she endeavored to comply with the fourth period. The Court noted that respondent completed the required units on May 19, 2012, still within the fourth compliance period, and was issued Certificates of Exemption on September 4, 2012 for the first to third periods. Under Rules 12 and 13 of B.M. 850, a member may be declared delinquent only after failing to comply within 60 days from receipt of a Notice of Non-Compliance. No such notice was shown to have been issued to respondent. When the disbarment case was filed on October 12, 2012, respondent still had until April 14, 2013 to comply with the fourth period, and she had already completed the required units on May 19, 2012. Thus, there was no basis to hold her liable under B.M. 850.

• Notarial Practice — Incomplete Instruments: Notarization is impressed with public interest, and a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements of the office. Respondent notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the same property and involving substantially the same parties. In the October 12, 2011 deed, the acknowledgment stated that all named vendors personally appeared and acknowledged the instrument, but only Leonardo, Lilia, and Victoriano actually signed; Community Tax Certificate details were provided for Juanito, Felix, and Crispen, but they did not sign; and the spaces for Pablito and Lucita were left blank. In the October 19, 2011 deed, Victoriano and Lucita were no longer listed as vendors, but Pablito was listed without a signature. Section 6, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public shall not notarize a blank or incomplete instrument or document, or one without appropriate notarial certification. Respondent clearly violated this provision when she notarized the deeds despite the incomplete signature and identification details of the vendors.

• Notarial Practice — Personal Appearance and Competent Evidence of Identity: Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 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 to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. The Notarial Rules mandate that before notarizing a document, the notary public should require the presence of the very person who executed it, so that the notary can verify the genuineness of the signature. Here, the proof of identity indicated for the vendors was the Community Tax Certificate number. Jurisprudence holds that a Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity because it does not bear a photograph and signature of the individual concerned, as required by Rule II, Section 12 of the Notarial Rules. Worse, the counter-affidavits of Victoriano, Crispin, Felix, and Juanito Sultan stated that they did not appear before respondent in October 2011; Crispin stated he was in Bacolod City, and Felix and Juanito stated they did not appear before a notary public in Catbalogan City. When respondent affixed her signature and notarial seal, she led the public to believe that the parties personally appeared before her and attested to the truth of the contents when they denied doing so. Her conduct undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization.

• Code of Professional Responsibility: For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. She also violated Rule 1.01, which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Thus, respondent was liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

• Penalty: Based on recent jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his or her duties as such is penalized with revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. In addition, he or she may be suspended from the practice of law for six months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties. The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the IBP Board.

• Notarization is impressed with public interest — A notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his or her duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. The Court applied this principle to hold respondent liable for failing to discharge her notarial duties.
• Prohibition on notarizing incomplete instruments — Under Section 6, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public shall not notarize a blank or incomplete instrument or document, or one without appropriate notarial certification. Respondent violated this when she notarized deeds with missing signatures and identification details.
• Personal appearance and competent evidence of identity — Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public shall not perform 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 identified through competent evidence of identity. A Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity because it lacks a photograph and signature. The Court applied this to the deeds whose vendors denied appearing.
• MCLE non-compliance procedure — Under B.M. 850 Rules 12 and 13, an IBP member may be declared delinquent only after failing to comply within 60 days from receipt of a Notice of Non-Compliance. Without such notice, a member cannot be declared delinquent. The Court applied this to absolve respondent because no notice was issued and she completed the fourth compliance period on time.
• Lawyer’s duty to obey laws and avoid dishonest conduct — Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. A lawyer who violates the Notarial Rules also violates these professional duties.
• Penalty for notarial violations — A lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge notarial duties may be penalized with revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years; suspension from law practice for six months may also be imposed for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties. The Court affirmed this penalty.

• "The act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his or her duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system." — This passage states the rationale for the strict standard imposed on notaries public and supports the Court’s finding of administrative liability.
• "Here, respondent clearly violated this provision when she notarized the deeds of absolute sale despite the incomplete signature and identification details of the vendors." — This is the Court’s direct application of Section 6, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to the incomplete deeds.
• "The Notarial Rules clearly mandate that before notarizing a document, the notary public should require the presence of the very person who executed the same." — This passage articulates the personal-appearance requirement that respondent violated.
• "Based on the rules, an IBP member shall only be declared delinquent for failure to comply with the education requirements "after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired."" — This passage defines the condition for MCLE delinquency and explains why respondent could not be held liable under B.M. 850.

• Arnado vs. Atty. Adaza, 161 Phil. 696, 704 (2015) — Cited for the MCLE compliance periods, including the fourth compliance period from April 15, 2010 to April 14, 2013.
• Strongbuilt Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Belmi, A.C. No. 11014, February 15, 2016 — Cited to support the rule that a member may be declared delinquent only after the 60-day period from a Notice of Non-Compliance, and not without awareness and a chance to rectify the deficiency.
• Atty. Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1, 5 (2015) — Cited for the principle that notarization is impressed with public interest and requires the highest degree of care.
• Baylon vs. Almo, 578 Phil. 238 (2008) — Cited for the rule that a Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules.
• Ferguson vs. Ramos, A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 59, 65 — Cited for the requirement that the parties must personally appear before the notary to verify the genuineness of signatures; also cited for the six-month suspension for notarizing without appearance.
• Baysac vs. Atty. Aceron-Papa, 792 Phil. 635, 646-647 (2016) — Cited for the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
• Ocampo-Ingcoco vs. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., 458 Phil. 814 (2003) — Cited in Ferguson vs. Ramos for the penalty of suspension from law practice for six months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties.

• Section 6, Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from notarizing a blank or incomplete instrument or document, or one without appropriate notarial certification. Applied to the deeds with missing signatures and identification details.
• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits 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 identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to the vendors who denied appearing before respondent.
• 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. Applied to hold that a Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity.
• Rule 12 and Rule 13, B.M. 850 — Provide the non-compliance procedures and consequences, including the 60-day period from notice within which a member may attain compliance, and listing as a delinquent member only after failure to comply within that period. Applied to absolve respondent of MCLE liability.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied because respondent violated the Notarial Rules.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Applied to respondent’s notarization of incomplete deeds and deeds without personal appearance.

Carpio (Chairperson), Reyes, Jr., and Hernando concurred. Hernando was designated as an additional member per Special Order No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018. Perlas-Bernabe was on wellness leave.