Navarrete vs. Brillantes, Jr.

A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarizes a document without requiring the signatory to present competent evidence of identity as defined by Section 12, Rule II—such as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual—and a community tax certificate or private-institution ID does not satisfy this requirement. Such a breach does not automatically establish unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR where the notary relied on a TCT stating the signatories were of legal age, family confirmation, and unchallenged similar signatures.

Complainants Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr. co-owned a property with their elder brother, Michael Dinno Navarrete. Respondent Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr. is a lawyer who, at the relevant time, was also a notary public. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, effective August 1, 2004, and the Code of Professional Responsibility supplied the regulatory backdrop for the administrative complaint.

Complainants Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr. co-owned a property with their elder brother, Michael Dinno Navarrete. On October 30, 2004, respondent Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr. drafted, prepared, and notarized a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (DREM) in favor of Willy Sebastian involving that property. According to complainants, the DREM was executed without their knowledge; respondent falsified and made it appear that they were of legal age when, in fact, Miguel was only 15 years old and Miguelito, Jr. was 13 years old at the time of execution; and respondent deliberately allowed complete strangers to sign their names as MGN and MGN, Jr. on the DREM. Complainants asserted that respondent’s notarization served as evidence that he knowingly and deliberately took part in Sebastian’s fraud and that he defended that fraud before the courts and legal offices. In support, they attached, among others, TCT No. T-1077136; their birth certificates showing Miguel was born on March 14, 1989, and Miguelito, Jr. on May 22, 1991; the DREM and its Amendment; TCTs issued in favor of Sebastian; their IDs; their Joint Reply-Affidavit in the estafa through falsification complaint they filed against respondent; the CTCs and IDs presented to respondent by the impostors; respondent’s Comment/Opposition to their Petition for Review with the Department of Justice; and their Amended and Second Amended Complaints in the civil case against Sebastian.

Respondent denied violating the 2004 Notarial Rules and the CPR. He asserted that he ascertained the identities of the persons who appeared before him by having them present their CTCs and IDs, which he photocopied, and that these documents confirmed their identities as Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. and that they were of legal age. He claimed he merely copied the information in the property’s TCT, which explicitly stated that complainants were of legal age. The persons who appeared before him were accompanied by Miguelito R. Navarrete, Sr., complainants’ father, who introduced them as his sons, and by Dinno, who acknowledged them as his brothers. Respondent also pointed to a July 2003 Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed by complainants, Miguelito, Sr., Dinno, Alexander R. Navarrete, and Michael Leandro A. Navarrete, in which complainants likewise represented themselves as “of legal age” and by virtue of which TCT No. T-077136 was issued in their and Dinno’s names; he noted that the signatures of the persons who claimed to be Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. in the DREM were similar to complainants’ signatures in that settlement, which complainants never questioned.

Respondent further pointed out that Atty. Rolando B. Bernardo, not he, notarized the Amended DREM, yet complainants did not administratively charge Bernardo. He also claimed that in the civil cases complainants filed against him and his client, they never questioned the validity of the DREM on the ground that they were minors at the time of its execution. Respondent argued that the administrative complaint was an afterthought: the DREM was executed and notarized on October 20, 2004, or almost twelve years before the complaint was filed on October 7, 2016, and the filing was intended to harass and coerce him into convincing his client to settle or withdraw the civil case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. He averred that this was the first administrative case filed against him in over 25 years of practice. He added that at the time of the DREM’s execution, the 2004 Notarial Rules had just been enacted and it was not clear what constituted competent evidence of identity; the Rules did not enumerate the documents considered as competent evidence, which was why he required the signatories to present their CTCs and IDs and had them sign the Notarial Register.

In support, respondent presented copies of TCT No. T-1077136; CTCs showing that Miguel was born on March 14, 1981, and Miguelito, Jr. on May 22, 1982; affidavits executed by Sebastian and Guadencia P. Zaplan, Sebastian’s broker, stating that they, together with complainants and their father, Miguelito, Sr., went to respondent’s law office on October 30, 2004 requesting him to prepare and execute the DREM; copies of the IDs presented by the persons who claimed to be Miguel and Miguelito, Jr.; the DREM and Amendment to the DREM; the complaints filed by complainants in the civil case; and the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. The IBP found that complainants were minors at the time of the DREM’s execution; that what were presented as competent proofs of identity were mere CTCs; and that the IDs issued by the University of Perpetual Help of Rizal and MRN Construction bore pictures of matured persons, not those of then minors Miguel and Miguelito, Jr.

• Falsification and Minority: Complainants alleged that respondent drafted, prepared, and notarized the DREM without their knowledge and made it appear therein that they were of legal age when Miguel was only 15 years old and Miguelito, Jr. was 13 years old at the time of the DREM’s execution.
• Impostors and Notarial Misconduct: Complainants alleged that respondent deliberately allowed complete strangers to sign their names as MGN and MGN, Jr. on the DREM.
• Participation in Fraud: Complainants asserted that respondent’s notarization of the DREM served as evidence that he knowingly and deliberately took part in the fraud committed against them by Sebastian.
• Defense of Fraud: Complainants claimed that respondent defended the fraud committed by Sebastian, respondent’s client, before the courts and the offices of the legal system.
• Violations Charged: The administrative complaint charged respondent with violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rules 1.01, 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Due Diligence in Identity Verification: Respondent denied violating the 2004 Notarial Rules and the CPR, asserting that he ascertained the identities of the persons who appeared before him by having them present their CTCs and IDs, which he photocopied, and that these documents confirmed their identities and legal age.
• Reliance on TCT: Respondent claimed that he merely copied the information in the property’s TCT, which explicitly stated that complainants were of legal age.
• Family Confirmation: Respondent averred that the persons who appeared before him were accompanied by Miguelito, Sr., complainants’ father, who introduced them as his sons, and by Dinno, who acknowledged them as his brothers.
• Extrajudicial Settlement and Signatures: Respondent pointed out that complainants, together with Miguelito, Sr., Dinno, Alexander R. Navarrete, and Michael Leandro A. Navarrete, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate in July 2003 where complainants likewise represented themselves as “of legal age,” and that the signatures of the persons who claimed to be Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. in the DREM were similar to complainants’ signatures in that settlement, which complainants never questioned.
• Amended DREM Notarized by Another: Respondent pointed out that Atty. Rolando B. Bernardo, not he, notarized the Amended DREM, but complainants did not administratively charge Bernardo.
• Failure to Question Validity in Civil Cases: Respondent claimed that in the civil cases complainants filed against him and his client, complainants never questioned the validity of the DREM on the ground that they were minors at the time of its execution.
• Afterthought and Harassment: Respondent asserted that the filing of the administrative complaint was merely an afterthought, pointing out that the DREM was executed and notarized almost twelve years before the complaint was filed on October 7, 2016, and that the filing was intended to harass and coerce him to convince his client to amicably settle or withdraw the civil case.
• First Administrative Case and Unclear Rules: Respondent averred that this was the first administrative case filed against him in over 25 years of practice, and that at the time of the DREM’s execution, the 2004 Notarial Rules had just been enacted and it was not clear what constituted competent evidence of identity, which was why he required the signatories to present their CTCs and IDs and had them sign the Notarial Register.

• Administrative Liability: Whether grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Administrative Liability: Yes, as to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; no, as to Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. Respondent failed to require competent evidence of identity, but the circumstances negated unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

• Administrative Liability: The Court affirmed the IBP’s finding that respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or 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 a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements of notarial duties, must inform himself of the facts he certifies, and must not take part in or allow himself to be part of illegal transactions. Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. Respondent was found remiss because he failed to properly confirm the identity of the persons claiming to be Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. through competent evidence of identity. A community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered valid and competent evidence of identity because it is not included in the list under the Rules and does not bear the photograph and signature of the persons appearing before the notary. The records showed that complainants were still minors at the time of the DREM’s execution on October 30, 2004, so they could not have been the persons who appeared before respondent and represented themselves as Miguel and Miguelito, Jr. Had respondent been more circumspect and asked for identification documents issued by an official agency bearing their photograph and signature, he would have immediately discovered that the persons before him were not the persons they purported to be. By accepting the CTCs presented by the impostors as evidence of identity, respondent made it appear that complainants personally appeared before him and subscribed the DREM, in violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. Respondent’s claim that he further verified identity through IDs issued by the University of Perpetual Help of Rizal and MRN Construction did not cure the defect, because those IDs were issued by mere private institutions, not by an official agency as required. The statements of Miguelito, Sr. and Dinno regarding the identity of the persons who claimed to be complainants likewise did not comply with Section 12: Dinno was privy to the DREM, and the records contained no evidence that the other witnesses were personally known to respondent or had shown him the required documentary identification. Despite the clear requirements of the 2004 Notarial Rules, which respondent admitted were already in effect, he failed to comply. In legal ethics, a breach of the Notarial Rules would generally also constitute a violation of the CPR, because an erring lawyer who is remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer, particularly to uphold and obey the law and its legal processes and to do no falsehood nor engage in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, while Rule 10.01, Canon 10 provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. However, the Court found that respondent’s actions were tempered by the fact that the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-1077136 under the names of complainants and Dinno, from which respondent obtained the information needed for the DREM, explicitly stated that complainants were of legal age; nothing in the title could have put respondent on notice that complainants were still minors and could not have been the same persons appearing before him, especially since Miguelito, Sr. and Dinno ostensibly confirmed the impostors’ identity. Further, complainants’ signatures in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, wherein they were likewise represented as “of legal age,” uncontestably appeared to be the same, and this was the first time respondent had been administratively charged for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules and the CPR in his over 25 years of practice. Consequently, while respondent clearly failed to comply with the law and its legal processes, the Court was hard-pressed to conclude that he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct so as to hold him liable for violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. The Court nevertheless found that respondent violated the 2004 Notarial Rules when he notarized documents without ascertaining the identity of the persons who sought notarization, thereby undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and degrading the function of notarization. As to penalty, prevailing jurisprudence instructs that an erring lawyer who violates the 2004 Notarial Rules must be meted with: (a) immediate revocation of their notarial commission, if any; (b) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years; and (c) suspension from the practice of law for six months. The Court imposed these penalties to remind notaries public to observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties.

• Notarization as a substantive public act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is 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 a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of notarial duties; otherwise, public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents is undermined. The Court applied this principle to hold respondent accountable for failing to verify identity.
• Competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules — Under Section 2(b), Rule IV, a notary public should not notarize unless the signatory is personally present and personally known or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. Respondent failed to comply.
• Community tax certificate not competent evidence of identity — A CTC or cedula is not valid and competent evidence of identity because it is not included in the list under the 2004 Notarial Rules and does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before the notary. Respondent’s acceptance of CTCs violated the Rules.
• Private-institution IDs not official-agency IDs — Identification documents issued by private institutions, such as the University of Perpetual Help of Rizal and MRN Construction, do not satisfy the requirement of an identification document issued by an official agency bearing photograph and signature. Respondent’s reliance on them was insufficient.
• Witness identification requirements — A credible witness under Section 12 must not be privy to the instrument, must personally know the individual subscribing, and must either be personally known to the notary public or show a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document issued by an official agency. Dinno was privy to the DREM, and no evidence showed the other witnesses met the requirements.
• Breach of Notarial Rules and CPR liability — A breach of the Notarial Rules generally also constitutes a violation of the CPR because an erring notary violates the lawyer’s oath to uphold the law and do no falsehood. However, liability under Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 requires unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; the Court declined to find such conduct where the TCT stated complainants were of legal age, family members confirmed the impostors’ identities, signatures appeared similar to an unchallenged settlement, and respondent had no prior administrative charge in over 25 years.
• Penalty for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules — Prevailing jurisprudence imposes: (a) immediate revocation of notarial commission, if any; (b) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years; and (c) suspension from the practice of law for six months. The Court imposed these on respondent.

• "notarization is not an empty, meaningless or 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." — This passage states the foundational principle on the public character of notarization and the notary’s duty of care, which the Court used to justify sanctioning respondent.
• 'Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.' — This is the canonical definition of competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules, the provision respondent failed to satisfy.
• "Case law settles that a community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list of competent evidence of identity under the Rules; even more, a CTC does not bear the photograph and signature of the persons appearing before them – requirements which the 2004 Notarial Rules deem as the more appropriate and competent means by which notaries public can ascertain the person's identity." — This passage establishes the specific rule that a CTC cannot serve as competent evidence of identity, which was central to the finding of violation.
• "while it is evidently clear that respondent failed to comply with the law and its legal processes, the Court is hard-pressed to conclude that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct so as to hold him liable for violating Rule 1.01, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR." — This passage explains why the Court limited liability to the 2004 Notarial Rules and declined to impose CPR liability for dishonest conduct despite the notarial violation.

• Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr., 834 Phil. 154 (2018) — Cited for the principle that notarization is invested with public interest and that a breach of the Notarial Rules generally also violates the CPR; also cited for the penalty imposed on erring notaries. The Court relied on it in finding respondent liable under the 2004 Notarial Rules while declining CPR liability for lack of dishonest conduct.
• Vda. de Miller vs. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449 (2015) — Cited in Triol as authority on the public-interest character of notarization and the notary’s duty of care.
• Heirs of Herminigildo A. Unite vs. Guzman, 834 Phil. 724 (2018) — Cited for the rule that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules; also cited among cases imposing similar penalties.
• Dandoy vs. Endayan, 832 Phil. 132 (2018) — Cited for the same rule that a CTC does not satisfy the competent-evidence-of-identity requirement.
• Uy vs. Apuhin, 839 Phil. 708 (2018); Malvar vs. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017); Ko vs. Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584 (March 6, 2019); Ong vs. Bihis, A.C. No. 13054 (November 23, 2021) — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence imposing the penalties of revocation of notarial commission, two-year disqualification, and six-month suspension for violations of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to respondent, who notarized the DREM without competent evidence that the signatories were complainants.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines competent evidence of identity as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. Respondent failed to comply. The provision was later amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC on February 19, 2008 to enumerate acceptable identification documents.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court declined to hold respondent liable under this rule because the circumstances negated unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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 likewise declined to hold respondent liable under this rule for lack of dishonest conduct.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.