Leano vs. Salatan

A notary public who notarizes a document without requiring competent evidence of identity, affixes his signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate, and delegates the recording of entries in his notarial register to an office clerk violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is subject to revocation of notarial commission, perpetual disqualification from being a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

The complainant, Valentino C. Leano, was the defendant in a civil case for specific performance with damages filed before Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, where the respondent, Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan, served as counsel for the plaintiffs. The administrative complaint arose from the respondent's notarization of an affidavit of a certain Teresita Cauilan, which was introduced as evidence in that civil case. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) and the Code of Professional Responsibility govern the conduct of notaries public in the performance of their notarial functions.

Valentino C. Leano was the defendant in a civil case for specific performance with damages filed by Spouses Juanita Tabudlo and Myrna Tabudlo, as represented by Miguel Cauilan and Jorge Cauilan, before Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City. Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan served as counsel for the plaintiffs in that case. During the trial, Atty. Salatan introduced into evidence the affidavit of a certain Teresita Cauilan, which he had notarized.

Upon closer scrutiny, Leano discovered several defects on the face of the affidavit: (a) the document had no date of execution; (b) Teresita's competent proof of identity was left blank in the document; and (c) Atty. Salatan's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number was not indicated therein. Leano further alleged that the subject affidavit did not appear in Atty. Salatan's notarial register, as evidenced by the Certificate (Lack of Record) issued by Atty. Jeanna B. Ongan, Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Santiago City.

In his Comment, Atty. Salatan did not squarely address the alleged defects in Teresita's affidavit. Instead, he argued that he had "dutifully ascertained that the affiant was sincerely telling the truth in support to the cause of action of the spouses Juanito and Myrna Tabudlo against Valentino Leano," which he deemed "the more important and overarching consideration" in notarizing the document. Regarding the failure to record the affidavit in his notarial register, Atty. Salatan explained that it was not deliberate but a mere clerical error by his staff, as it was his office clerk who had been tasked to do the mechanical act of entering and assigning docket numbers of documents in the Notarial Register. He invoked good faith, claiming he did not take advantage of his official position as Notary Public, and that he kept reminding his office staff to record completely all notarial acts in accordance with Section 2 of Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Violations of the Notarial Rules: Leano alleged that Atty. Salatan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing an affidavit that bore several defects on its face: (a) no date of execution; (b) blank competent proof of identity; and (c) no MCLE compliance number indicated.
• Failure to Record: Leano further alleged that the subject affidavit did not appear in Atty. Salatan's notarial register, as evidenced by the Certificate (Lack of Record) issued by the Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Santiago City.

• Clerical Error: Atty. Salatan explained that the failure to record Teresita's affidavit in his notarial register was not deliberate but a mere clerical error by his staff, as his office clerk had been tasked to do the mechanical act of entering and assigning docket numbers of documents in the Notarial Register.
• Good Faith: Atty. Salatan invoked good faith, claiming he did not take advantage of his official position as Notary Public, and that he kept reminding his office staff to record completely all notarial acts in accordance with Section 2 of Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Overarching Consideration: Atty. Salatan argued that he had "dutifully ascertained that the affiant was sincerely telling the truth in support to the cause of action of the spouses Juanito and Myrna Tabudlo against Valentino Leano," which he deemed "the more important and overarching consideration" in notarizing the document.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether Atty. Salatan violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by notarizing Teresita's affidavit without requiring any competent proof of her identity.
• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: Whether Atty. Salatan violated Section 5(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by affixing his official signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate.
• Failure to Record in Notarial Register: Whether Atty. Salatan violated Section 2(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules by failing to record the notarization of the subject affidavit in his notarial register.
• Delegation of Notarial Functions: Whether Atty. Salatan violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating the recording of entries in his notarial register to his office clerk.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. Atty. Salatan violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by notarizing Teresita's affidavit without requiring any competent proof of her identity, as the competent proof of identity was left blank on the face of the document itself.
• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: Yes. Atty. Salatan violated Section 5(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules when he affixed his official signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate, as the competent proof of Teresita's identity was left blank.
• Failure to Record in Notarial Register: Yes. Atty. Salatan violated Section 2(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, as the notarization of the subject affidavit was not recorded in his notarial register, and he did not deny this fact.
• Delegation of Notarial Functions: Yes. Atty. Salatan violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating his notarial function of recording entries in his notarial register to his office clerk, as a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules prohibits a person 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. "Competent evidence of identity" is defined under Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules 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. In this case, the records showed that Atty. Salatan affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of Teresita's affidavit without properly identifying the person who signed the document, as the competent proof of Teresita's identity had been left blank on the face of the document itself. Atty. Salatan's claim that he had "ascertained" that the affiant was the same person executing the document failed to explain why Teresita's competent evidence of identity was not indicated in the notarial certificate. There was also no allegation that Teresita was personally known to Atty. Salatan to dispense with the presentation of her competent evidence of identity.

• Incomplete Notarial Certificate: Section 5(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules provides that a notary public shall not affix his official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. A notarial certificate is defined as "the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules." Because the competent proof of Teresita's identity was left blank, the notarial certificate was incomplete, and Atty. Salatan's affixation of his signature and seal thereon constituted a violation of this provision.

• Failure to Record in Notarial Register: Section 2(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules requires that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number and page number, the date and time of day of the notarial act, the type of notarial act, the title or description of the instrument, the name and address of each principal, the competent evidence of identity if the signatory is not personally known to the notary, the name and address of each credible witness, the fee charged, the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work, and any other circumstance the notary may deem significant. Atty. Salatan did not deny that the subject document was not recorded in his notarial register. His explanations — that Docket No. 805 was vacant and intended for such document, that there was no deliberate intention not to record, and that his office clerk was tasked with the mechanical act of listing documents — were insufficient. It is settled that "a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register."

• Delegation of Notarial Functions: Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." Atty. Salatan's delegation of his notarial function of recording entries in his notarial register to his office clerk constituted a clear violation of this rule. The Court cited the 2017 case of Sps. Chambon vs. Atty. Ruiz, where the factual milieu was markedly similar, and the Court found the respondent doubly negligent for notarizing an incomplete notarial document and delegating his duty of recording entries in his notarial register to his secretary. Guided by that precedent, the Court imposed the same penalties upon Atty. Salatan.

• Personal Accountability of a Notary Public for Entries in the Notarial Register — A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. The delegation of the notarial function of recording entries to an office clerk constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

• Duty to Require Competent Evidence of Identity — Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person 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 to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. "Competent evidence of identity" refers to 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.

• Prohibition Against Notarizing Incomplete Documents — Under Section 5(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public shall not affix his official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. A notarial certificate is the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization.

• "A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document - (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules." — This quotation states the controlling rule under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which the Court applied to find Atty. Salatan liable for notarizing Teresita's affidavit without competent proof of her identity.

• "However, it is settled that 'a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register.'" — This quotation articulates the principle that a notary public cannot escape liability for unrecorded notarial acts by delegating the recording function to office staff, forming the basis for the finding of violation of Section 2(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules and Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR.

• "Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." — This quotation states the provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility that Atty. Salatan violated by delegating the recording of entries in his notarial register to his office clerk, as the notarial function may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

• Sps. Chambon vs. Atty. Ruiz, 817 Phil. 712, 721 (2017) — Controlling precedent with markedly similar facts, where the Court found the respondent doubly negligent for notarizing an incomplete notarial document and delegating his duty of recording entries in his notarial register to his secretary, and imposed the penalties of revocation of notarial commission, suspension from the practice of law for one year, and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. The Court was guided by this precedent in imposing the same penalties upon Atty. Salatan.
• Dr. Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16, 28 (2017) — Cited in support of the proposition that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a person 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. Applied to find Atty. Salatan liable for notarizing Teresita's affidavit without requiring competent proof of her identity.
• 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. Applied to determine that the blank competent proof of identity in Teresita's affidavit constituted a violation.
• Section 5(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public shall not affix his official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. Applied to find Atty. Salatan liable for affixing his signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate.
• Section 2(a), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number and page number, date and time of day, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, name and address of each credible witness, fee charged, address where notarization was performed, and any other significant circumstance. Applied to find Atty. Salatan liable for failing to record the notarization of Teresita's affidavit.
• Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Applied to find Atty. Salatan liable for delegating the recording of entries in his notarial register to his office clerk.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan (designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020), JJ., concurred.