Legaspi vs. Landrito

A notary public, especially one who is also a lawyer, must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth; failure to observe the personal-appearance requirement constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation or suspension of notarial commission, notwithstanding the subsequent voluntary confirmation of execution by the principals.

Jofel P. Legaspi filed a verified administrative complaint against Attys. Ramon Landrito and Magno Toribio arising from the execution and notarization of a Special Power of Attorney dated December 27, 2005, which was used as the basis for an ejectment suit before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Trece Martires City, Cavite. The SPA purportedly authorized Pedrito Aragon to represent his co-heirs—Madonna Aragon Aristorenas, Jesusa Aragon, Rafael Aragon, and Danilo Aragon—in the DARAB case. Atty. Landrito filed the DARAB suit on behalf of Pedrito Aragon, while Atty. Toribio notarized the SPA. The same SPA also gave rise to a separate criminal complaint for falsification filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Trece Martires City.

Jofel P. Legaspi filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint dated March 2, 2006 charging Attys. Ramon Landrito and Magno Toribio with Grave Misconduct, Grave Dishonesty, Use of Falsified Document, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar. The complaint centered on a Special Power of Attorney dated December 27, 2005, which purportedly authorized Pedrito Aragon to represent his co-heirs—Madonna Aragon Aristorenas, Jesusa Aragon, Rafael Aragon, and Danilo Aragon—in an ejectment suit. Atty. Landrito had filed that ejectment case before the DARAB of Trece Martires City, docketed as DARAB Case No. 0402-098-05, on behalf of Pedrito Aragon purportedly in representation of the co-heirs. Legaspi alleged that Atty. Landrito prepared the falsified SPA to make it appear that Pedrito Aragon was duly authorized, and that he used it as evidence in the DARAB case with full knowledge of its falsity.

According to Legaspi, Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon could not have executed the SPA on December 27, 2005 because they were residing in the United States of America and Canada, respectively. They had not returned to the Philippines in 2005, as certified by the Bureau of Immigration, and were not even Filipino citizens. Atty. Toribio, for his part, allegedly notarized the SPA without requiring the presence of the principals or verifying whether the document was really executed by them and was their free and voluntary act and deed.

In his Comment dated May 31, 2006, Atty. Toribio cited the Resolution of the City Prosecutor dated April 18, 2006, stating that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon had attested that the signatures on the SPA were their own and that they voluntarily executed it in favor of their brother. Atty. Landrito, in his Comment dated June 12, 2006, claimed he had no participation in the execution of the SPA. Legaspi countered in his Consolidated Reply dated February 14, 2007 that the City Prosecutor's Resolution was not yet final, as the DOJ had ordered a re-investigation, and that the affidavits of Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon only proved they were not in the country when the SPA was notarized.

Bureau of Immigration certifications dated January 19, 2006 confirmed that as of that date, Madonna Aristorenas had traveled to the Philippines only between December 15 and 30, 2003, and Rafael Aragon had traveled to the Philippines only from December 15 to 27, 2003. In her affidavit acknowledged before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Chicago, Illinois on February 22, 2006, Madonna Aristorenas stated that she signed the SPA at her residence in the United States. Similarly, in his affidavit acknowledged before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Vancouver, British Columbia on February 23, 2006, Rafael Aragon stated that he signed the SPA at his residence in Canada. Thus, while the SPA was voluntarily executed by the principals, it was notarized in their absence on December 27, 2005.

• Falsification of SPA: Legaspi alleged that Atty. Landrito prepared the falsified SPA to make it appear that Pedrito Aragon was duly authorized to represent his co-heirs, and used it as evidence in the DARAB case with full knowledge of its falsity.
• Improper Notarization: Legaspi charged that Atty. Toribio notarized the SPA without requiring the personal presence of the principals or verifying whether the document was genuinely executed by them as their free and voluntary act and deed.
• Impossibility of Execution: Legaspi asserted that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon could not have executed the SPA on December 27, 2005 because they were residing abroad, had not returned to the Philippines in 2005 as certified by the Bureau of Immigration, and were not Filipino citizens.
• Non-Finality of City Prosecutor's Resolution: In his Consolidated Reply, Legaspi pointed out that the April 18, 2006 Resolution of the City Prosecutor was not yet final because the DOJ had ordered a re-investigation, and that the affidavits of the principals only proved they were not in the country when the SPA was notarized.

• Voluntary Execution by Principals: Atty. Toribio argued, citing the City Prosecutor's Resolution dated April 18, 2006, that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon had attested that the signatures on the SPA were their own and that they voluntarily executed it in favor of their brother Pedrito Aragon.
• Non-Participation in SPA Preparation: Atty. Landrito claimed in his Comment dated June 12, 2006 that he had no participation in the execution of the SPA.
• DOJ Affirmation: Atty. Landrito manifested that the DOJ had issued a Resolution dated September 25, 2006 affirming the findings of the City Prosecutor.

• Notarial Violation: Whether Atty. Toribio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of the principals.
• Liability of Atty. Landrito: Whether Atty. Landrito participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA or knowingly used a defective document in evidence.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of six months' suspension was appropriate, considering the respondent's age and the circumstances.

• Notarial Violation: Yes. Atty. Toribio was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing the SPA without the personal appearance of the principals, who were demonstrably abroad on the date of notarization.
• Liability of Atty. Landrito: No. The case against Atty. Landrito was dismissed for lack of merit, there being no indication that he participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA or knew of the defect in its notarization.
• Proper Penalty: Yes. A six-month suspension from the practice of law and from notarial commission was imposed, with a stern warning, tempered by compassion and leniency due to Atty. Toribio's retirement age.

• Notarial Violation: The records established through Bureau of Immigration certifications that Madonna Aristorenas had traveled to the Philippines only between December 15 and 30, 2003, and Rafael Aragon only from December 15 to 27, 2003. Neither was in the country on or about December 27, 2005. Their own affidavits, acknowledged before Philippine consulates abroad, confirmed they signed the SPA at their residences in the United States and Canada, respectively. Although the SPA was voluntarily executed, it was notarized in their absence, constituting a clear violation of the rules on notarial practice. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public one entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appear before him. This responsibility is graver when the notary is also a lawyer bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and do no falsehood.

• Liability of Atty. Landrito: There was no indication in the records that Atty. Landrito participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA. Nor was there any basis to conclude that he knew of the defect in the notarization and introduced the SPA in evidence with knowledge of its deficiency. Absent such proof, the complaint against him could not be sustained.

• Proper Penalty: The IBP recommended six months' suspension both as a lawyer and as a notary public. In Follosco vs. Atty. Mateo, a respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three months and had his notarial commission revoked for one year for notarizing documents without personal appearance of affiants, though the penalty was later reduced on humanitarian grounds. Considering that Atty. Toribio was already of retirement age, a degree of compassion and leniency was deemed proper, and the six-month suspension was affirmed.

• Personal Appearance Requirement in Notarization — A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, as it is through 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. The Court applied this doctrine to hold Atty. Toribio liable, as the principals were demonstrably abroad when the SPA was notarized.

• Heightened Responsibility of Lawyer-Notaries — The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer, by reason of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. A lawyer-notary who fails in his duties must bear the commensurate consequences, including suspension from the practice of law and suspension or revocation of his notarial commission.

• Voluntary Execution Does Not Cure Defective Notarization — Even where the principals subsequently confirm that they voluntarily executed the document, the notarization remains defective if it was done without their personal appearance before the notary public. The Court found that although Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon voluntarily signed the SPA, its notarization in their absence was still a violation of the rules on notarial practice.

• "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." — This passage articulates the doctrinal foundation for the heightened standard imposed on notaries public, explaining why the personal-appearance requirement is not a mere technicality but a safeguard of public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

• "A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein." — This is the canonical formulation of the personal-appearance rule applied in this case, frequently cited in subsequent notarial practice jurisprudence.

• "Clearly, although the SPA dated December 27, 2005 was voluntarily executed by the principals, it was notarized in their absence in clear violation of the rules on notarial practice." — This statement establishes that voluntary execution by the principals does not cure the procedural defect of notarization without personal appearance, a key holding of the case.

• Agagon vs. Bustamante, A.C. No. 5510, December 20, 2007, 541 SCRA 286 — Cited for the proposition that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with elementary formalities.
• Dela Cruz vs. Zabala, A.C. No. 6294, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 407 — Cited for the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before him.
• Follosco vs. Atty. Mateo, 466 Phil. 305 (2004) — Cited as precedent for the penalty of suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission for notarizing documents without the personal appearance of affiants; the penalty in that case was reduced on humanitarian grounds, which the Court analogized in granting leniency to Atty. Toribio.
• Gokioco vs. Mateo, A.C. No. 4179, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 1 — Cited for the principle that a lawyer-notary who fails in his duties must bear the commensurate consequences, those duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

• Section 1, Public Act No. 2103 — Governs the acknowledgment of instruments and documents before a notary public, requiring that the notary certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The Court applied this provision to establish that Atty. Toribio failed to comply with the statutory requirement of personal appearance and verification.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court invoked this canon to underscore the heightened duty of a lawyer-notary to comply with notarial rules.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The Court cited this rule in emphasizing the graver responsibility placed upon a lawyer who acts as a notary public.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Associate Justice, Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales (Associate Justice), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Associate Justice), and Arturo D. Brion (Associate Justice) concurred in the Resolution.