Ladrera vs. Osorio

A notary public who notarizes documents without requiring competent evidence of identity, uses a jurat in lieu of an acknowledgment for a deed of conveyance, and fails to make proper entries in the notarial register is guilty of gross negligence warranting revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Complainant Librada A. Ladrera and her daughter Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar were named as buyers in three documents — a Deed of Absolute Sale, an Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note, and a Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights — purporting to convey property owned by respondent's client Dalia Valladolid-Rousan. The parties were involved in an ejectment case filed by Rousan against complainant and her daughter, in which the notarized documents were used as evidence. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in nature, neither purely civil nor criminal, but investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers, with public interest as the primary objective.

Complainant Librada A. Ladrera filed a sworn complaint dated December 16, 2013 charging respondent Atty. Ramiro S. Osorio with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing three documents in which she and her daughter Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar were named as buyers of property purportedly owned by respondent's client Dalia Valladolid-Rousan. The documents were: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 30, 2008, (2) an Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note dated July 30, 2008, and (3) a Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights dated April 24, 2009. Complainant alleged that neither she nor her daughter executed or personally subscribed these documents before Atty. Osorio, and that her daughter was living abroad during the dates in question.

Complainant identified several defects in the documents. The Deed of Absolute Sale did not indicate the competent evidence of identity of the supposed affiants, contained no technical description of the subject realty, and was allegedly executed outside respondent's notarial jurisdiction. The Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note, dated July 30, 2008, was notarized on April 24, 2009. The Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights likewise did not indicate the competent evidence of identity of the supposed affiants, and its notarial certification was false because the document and page number indicated pertained to an entirely different document in respondent's notarial register.

In his Comment dated July 18, 2014, Atty. Osorio countered that complainant was the "direct beneficiary" of the questioned documents, having used them as evidence in an ejectment case filed by Rousan against her and her daughter. He claimed that complainant personally went to his office with companions who were purportedly the signatories to the documents, and that the signatures of these witnesses were already affixed when the documents were presented to him. He admitted that he had already affixed his signature and notarial seal before learning that complainant and her companions did not bring their competent proofs of identity. He then advised them to leave the documents in his possession until they could present the required identification. He claimed he never turned the documents over to complainant and did not know how she obtained them. He also stated he was not paid for the notarization.

The case was referred to the IBP-Committee on Bar Discipline and assigned to Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos. A mandatory conference was set for June 19, 2015, but only complainant and her counsel appeared; Atty. Osorio did not attend despite notice. The parties were required to file verified position papers. Complainant submitted hers on July 21, 2015, while Atty. Osorio again failed to comply. Commissioner Gomos found that respondent failed to observe due care as notary public on four grounds: absence of the persons supposedly involved, lack of competent evidence of identity, lack of authority to notarize documents executed outside his jurisdiction, and lack of the required notarial acknowledgment on deeds of conveyance. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification, imposing revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Non-Personal Appearance: Complainant alleged that neither she nor her daughter Kumar personally appeared before Atty. Osorio to subscribe the documents, and that her daughter was living abroad during the dates in question, making personal appearance impossible.
• Defects in Notarized Documents: Complainant asserted that the three documents bore multiple defects: the Deed of Absolute Sale lacked competent evidence of identity of the affiants, contained no technical description of the subject realty, and was executed outside respondent's notarial jurisdiction; the Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note was notarized on a date different from its execution; and the Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights lacked competent evidence of identity and contained a false notarial certification referencing an entirely different document in respondent's notarial register.
• Violation of Notarial Rules and Ethical Standards: Complainant charged respondent with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing documents without the parties' presence and without competent proofs of identity.

• Complainant as Direct Beneficiary: Respondent argued that complainant was the "direct beneficiary" of the questioned documents, as she used them as evidence in an ejectment case and continues to occupy Rousan's property without having paid the full purchase price.
• Personal Appearance of Complainant: Respondent maintained that complainant personally went to his office with companions who were purportedly the signatories, and that the witnesses' signatures were already affixed to the documents when presented. He believed in good faith that the persons with complainant were the signatories.
• Good Faith Retention of Documents: Respondent claimed that upon discovering the parties lacked competent proofs of identity, he retained the documents and never turned them over to complainant, asserting that complainant obtained them through her "unusual enterprising ability."
• Lack of Malice: Respondent contended that he delayed no man for money or malice, as he was not even paid for notarizing the documents.

• Personal Appearance: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing the documents in the absence of the parties who supposedly executed them.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing the documents without requiring the parties to present competent evidence of identity.
• Jurat vs. Acknowledgment: Whether respondent committed an error in certifying the Deed of Absolute Sale with a jurat instead of an acknowledgment.
• Notarial Register Entries: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by making incorrect entries in his notarial register.
• Notarial Jurisdiction: Whether respondent performed notarial acts outside his notarial jurisdiction.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalties imposed by the IBP Board of Governors — revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months — were proper.

• Personal Appearance: No violation established on this ground. The BID certification showing Kumar left the Philippines on November 3, 2006 did not contain any statement that she was still out of the country in April 2009, so the presumption of regularity in the performance of respondent's official duty as notary public was upheld on this point.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Violation established. Respondent admitted in his Comment that he had already notarized the documents before learning that the parties did not have competent proofs of identity, in clear violation of Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules.
• Jurat vs. Acknowledgment: Violation established. The Deed of Absolute Sale required an acknowledgment, not a jurat, and respondent's failure to distinguish between the two demonstrated lack of basic knowledge of notarial acts.
• Notarial Register Entries: Violation established. The entry for the Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note pertained to an entirely different document, violating Section 2(e), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Notarial Jurisdiction: No violation established. Nothing in the Deed of Absolute Sale indicated respondent misrepresented himself as a commissioned notary in Camarines Sur; the notarial details showed his commission was issued in Quezon City, and it was not prohibited for a deed executed in one place to be notarized in another so long as the parties personally appeared before the notary.
• Proper Penalty: Yes. The penalties of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months were proper and consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Personal Appearance: Complainant submitted a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation certification stating that Kumar left the Philippines on November 3, 2006. However, the certification did not contain any statement that Kumar was still out of the country in April 2009, the date when the documents were supposedly notarized. Without proof that Kumar was abroad at the time of notarization, the BID certification could not negate respondent's categorical statement that Kumar personally appeared and subscribed the documents before him. The presumption of regularity accorded to respondent in the performance of his official duty as notary public was therefore upheld on this specific point.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Competent evidence of identity is also necessary for filling in the details of the notarial register under Section 2(a), Rule VI. Respondent's own Comment admitted that he had already affixed his signature and notarial seal to the documents before discovering that the parties did not bring valid identifications. By his own admission, respondent was reckless and mindless of his sworn duties. There was no showing that he personally knew the parties so as to exempt them from presenting competent proofs of identity. His claim that he retained the documents and never turned them over to complainant, and that she obtained them through her "unusual enterprising ability," was deemed lacking in credence and contrary to the natural course of things, further highlighting his unworthiness to discharge notarial duties.

• Jurat vs. Acknowledgment: A jurat avows that a document was subscribed and sworn to before the notary public, while an acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed, attesting the deed to be his own before a competent officer, with the notary declaring that the executor personally attested the same to be the executor's free act. The Deed of Absolute Sale required an acknowledgment by the parties that the same was their voluntary act, not merely a jurat. Respondent's failure to distinguish between the two notarial acts demonstrated lack of basic knowledge of notarial practice.

• Notarial Register Entries: The Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note was assigned the entry Doc. No. 41, Page No. 9, Book No. 10, Series of 2009, but verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court for Quezon City revealed that this entry pertained to an entirely different document executed by other persons on the same date. Section 2(e), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the notary to give each instrument a number corresponding to the one in his register and to state the page of the register on which it is recorded, with no blank lines between entries. Respondent's failure to make proper entries demonstrated lack of care, undermined the integrity of notarization, cast doubt on the authenticity of the subject documents, and violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.

• Notarial Jurisdiction: Complainant asserted that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in Liboro Ragay, Camarines Sur, but was notarized by respondent in Quezon City. However, nothing in the deed indicated that respondent misrepresented himself as a commissioned notary public in Camarines Sur. The notarial details on the document itself indicated his commission was "issued on/at 1-5-09/Q.C." It was not prohibited for a deed executed in one locality to be brought to a notary in another for notarization, provided the parties personally appeared before the notary and were identified through competent evidence of identity.

• Proper Penalty: Respondent's want of care constituted a transgression of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. The Court surveyed prior cases imposing similar penalties: in Coquia vs. Atty. Laforteza, revocation and one-year suspension were imposed for failure to verify identity; in Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, revocation, one-year suspension, and two-year disqualification were imposed; in Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, revocation and two-year disqualification were imposed; and in Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, revocation, two-year disqualification, and six-month suspension were imposed. Following this jurisprudence, particularly Malvar, the penalties of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months were warranted under Section 1, Rule XI of the Notarial Rules.

• Presumption of Regularity in Notarial Acts — A notary public is presumed to have regularly performed official duties in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Court upheld this presumption regarding the personal appearance of complainant's daughter, because the BID certification only showed she left the country in 2006 but did not establish she was still abroad in April 2009 when the documents were notarized.

• Personal Appearance Requirement — Under Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, acknowledgment requires that the individual appears in person before the notary public, is identified through competent evidence of identity or is personally known, and represents that the signature was voluntarily affixed. This requirement gives effect to the act of acknowledgment and ensures the voluntariness and due execution of the instrument.

• Competent Evidence of Identity — Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. This requirement allows the notary to verify the identity of the principal and determine whether the instrument is a voluntary act, and is also necessary for proper entries in the notarial register.

• Distinction Between Jurat and Acknowledgment — A jurat avows that a document was subscribed and sworn to before the notary public, while an acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed, attesting the deed to be his own before a competent officer. Deeds of conveyance require acknowledgment, not merely a jurat, because they must reflect the parties' attestation that the instrument is their free and voluntary act.

• Integrity of the Notarial Register — A notary public is charged with the duty to accurately record pertinent information regarding instruments notarized. Notarization converts a private document into a public one, makes it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity, and ensures the document's reliability. Failure to make proper entries undermines the integrity of the notarial process and violates both the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Disciplinary Proceedings as Sui Generis — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither purely civil nor criminal but are investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers, with public interest as the primary objective. The real question is whether the attorney should still be allowed the privileges of the profession.

• "By his own admission, Atty. Osorio unabashedly confesses to being reckless, thoughtless, and mindless of his sworn duties as notary public. He peremptorily notarized the documents without first requiring the parties to present competent proofs of identity." — This passage captures the Court's finding of gross negligence on the part of the respondent, establishing the factual basis for the disciplinary penalties imposed.

• "Notarization ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. It converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution." — This passage articulates the legal significance and public function of notarization, explaining why strict compliance with notarial formalities is essential and why violations warrant severe sanctions.

• "That complainant may have benefitted from these documents is not a valid defense and does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint." — This passage establishes the principle that a complainant's potential benefit from notarized documents is irrelevant to the disciplinary inquiry into a notary public's compliance with the Notarial Rules, reinforcing the sui generis nature of proceedings against lawyers.

• Coquia vs. Atty. Laforteza, 805 Phil. 400 (2017) — Followed. The notary public's failure to personally verify the identity of all parties when notarizing a pre-signed document resulted in revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for one year. Used as benchmark for penalty calibration.

• Bartolome vs. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015) — Followed. Revocation of notarial commission, one-year suspension, and two-year disqualification from reappointment were imposed where the notary affixed his signature and seal without properly identifying the signatories. Cited for the principle that notarial indiscretion undermines the integrity of the office of notary public.

• Iringan vs. Atty. Gumangan, 816 Phil. 820 (2017) — Followed. Notarial commission revoked and notary prohibited from reappointment for two years for notarizing a contract of lease without parties presenting competent proofs of identity. Used to support the two-year disqualification penalty.

• Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017) — Followed as the most closely analogous precedent. Revocation of notarial commission, two-year disqualification from reappointment, and six-month suspension from the practice of law were imposed for violation of the Notarial Rules, Code of Professional Responsibility, and Lawyer's Oath. The Court expressly adopted this penalty framework for the present case.

• Tigno vs. Spouses Aquino, 486 Phil. 254 (2004) — Cited for the distinction between a jurat and an acknowledgment, supporting the finding that respondent erred in certifying the Deed of Absolute Sale with a jurat instead of an acknowledgment.

• Section 1, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "acknowledgment" as an act requiring the individual to appear in person before the notary public, be identified through competent evidence of identity or personally known, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Applied to determine that deeds of conveyance require acknowledgment, not merely a jurat.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to find respondent liable for notarizing documents without requiring competent proofs of identity.

• Section 2(a), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register the competent evidence of identity if the signatory is not personally known to the notary. Applied to underscore the connection between competent evidence of identity and proper notarial register entries.

• Section 2(e), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to give each instrument a number corresponding to the one in his register and to state the page of the register on which it is recorded, with no blank lines between entries. Applied to find respondent liable for assigning incorrect entries to the Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note.

• Section 1, Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Authorizes the Executive Judge to revoke a notarial commission for grounds including failure to make proper entries in the notarial register, failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence, and knowingly performing or failing to perform any act prohibited or mandated by the Rules. Applied as the statutory basis for revocation of respondent's notarial commission.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and to do no falsehood. Applied to hold respondent liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

• Lawyer's Oath — Commands lawyers to obey the laws and to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. Applied in conjunction with the Code of Professional Responsibility to establish respondent's ethical violations.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concurred.