Ong vs. Bijis

A notary public who notarizes documents without the affiants' personal appearance and without competent evidence of identity violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility; a community tax certificate or cedula is not competent evidence of identity. The notary's claim that impostors appeared before him does not excuse the failure to demand photograph-and-signature-bearing identification.

Josephine R. Ong filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Salvador M. Bijis, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, after he notarized two Special Powers of Attorney and a real estate mortgage. The documents were presented to Ong by Mary Ann Canlas, Teresita A. Puntual, and Ma. Salome A. Dacuycuy, who claimed to represent the registered owners of parcels of land in Davao City as borrowers. The governing framework is the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which regulates notarial acts and competent evidence of identity, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs lawyers' conduct.

Sometime in February 2006, Mary Ann Canlas, Teresita A. Puntual, and Ma. Salome A. Dacuycuy came to the house of complainant Josephine R. Ong, representing that they had been commissioned by the registered owners of two parcels of land in Toril and Tamayong, Davao City to look for a creditor to whom the parcels could be mortgaged. They carried two Special Powers of Attorney: one executed by Catalino C. Sayon and his wife, Donata Cajes Sayon, authorizing Puntual to sell, mortgage, or lease property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-110914 in Toril, Davao City; and another executed by Simeon Enoch and his wife, Felisa N. Enoch, authorizing Dacuycuy to sell, mortgage, or lease property covered by TCT No. P-14048 in Tamayong, Calinan District, Davao City. Canlas, Puntual, and Dacuycuy also showed Ong the owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs.

Canlas, Puntual, and Dacuycuy convinced Ong to lend money to the purported registered owners, promising timely payment and that they would facilitate the processing of all legal documentation required in the real estate mortgage. Convinced by these representations, Ong gave them P50,000.00 in cash and a check for P45,000.00. In return, they gave Ong the original copies of the titles and asked her to sign two documents both denominated as real estate mortgages. It was allegedly agreed that the loan would be paid within six months at 10% interest. A few days later, Canlas, Puntual, and Dacuycuy returned to Ong's house and gave her notarized copies of the real estate mortgages she had previously signed. Atty. Bijis had notarized the SPAs and the real estate mortgage purportedly executed by Enoch. No monthly payments were ever made despite repeated promises.

Sometime in February 2007, Ong decided to locate the registered owners of the subject properties to demand payment of their loans. She then learned from relatives, neighbors, and barangay officials that the registered owners — Sayon and his wife, and Enoch — were already dead long before the execution of the SPAs and the real estate mortgage. The registered owners Sayon, Donata, and Enoch had passed away in 1984, 1994, and 1993, respectively.

In his Answer, Atty. Bijis admitted notarizing the documents but maintained that the parties who appeared before him acknowledged that they were the same persons whose signatures appeared in the documents. He averred that their presence and residence certificates, as well as the certificates of title of the properties which they showed him, were his reasons for notarizing the documents. He concluded that those who appeared before him for notarization merely posed as the true landowners of the subject properties. He also claimed that this was his first unfortunate experience in his 35 years of legal practice.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline found that the fact that the parties who appeared before Atty. Bijis were mere impostors was not a defense, because notaries public must be vigilant in their duties. The Commissioner found that physical presence of the affiant ensures proper execution of the notary public's duty to determine whether the affiant's signature was voluntarily affixed; that the Notarial Rules demand competent evidence of identity, such as an identification card with photograph and signature; and that this requirement can be dispensed with only if the notary public personally knows the affiant. Atty. Bijis admitted that he did not personally know the parties. The IBP Board of Governors found the recommendation fully supported by the evidence and applicable rules and jurisprudence, found Atty. Bijis honest in his admissions, and appreciated in his favor that this was his first offense.

• Notarization Despite Death of Signatories: Complainant Ong alleged that Atty. Bijis notarized two Special Powers of Attorney and a real estate mortgage even though some signatories thereto had long been dead.
• Reliance on Notarized Documents: Ong claimed that Canlas, Puntual, and Dacuycuy used the SPAs and titles to convince her to lend P50,000.00 in cash and a P45,000.00 check, and that she later received notarized copies of the real estate mortgages.
• No Payment and Discovery of Deaths: Ong alleged that no monthly payments were made despite repeated promises, and that in February 2007 she learned from relatives, neighbors, and barangay officials that the registered owners had died long before the execution of the documents.
• Prayer for Disbarment: The complaint sought disbarment of Atty. Bijis for notarizing the documents despite the signatories being long dead.

• Admitted Notarization but Denied Liability: Atty. Bijis admitted notarizing the documents but maintained that the parties who appeared before him acknowledged that they were the same persons whose signatures appeared in said documents.
• Reliance on Presence, Residence Certificates, and Titles: He averred that their presence and residence certificates, as well as the certificates of title of the properties which they showed him, were his reasons for notarizing the documents.
• Impostors' Pretense: He concluded that those who appeared before him for notarization merely posed as the true landowners of the subject properties.
• First Offense: He claimed that this was his first unfortunate experience in his 35 years of legal practice.

• Administrative Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Bijis administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Administrative Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: Yes. Atty. Bijis was negligent in his duties as a notary public; he failed to require competent evidence of identity and notarized documents without the signatories' personal appearance, violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The penalty imposed by the IBP-BOG was affirmed.

• Administrative Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: The 2004 Rules require, for acknowledgment, that the signatory appear in person before the notary public and be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity; Section 2(b), Rule IV prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence and is not personally known or otherwise identified through competent evidence. Atty. Bijis admitted that he did not personally know any of the persons whose names appeared in the subject documents and who purportedly appeared before him. He therefore had to verify their identity through competent evidence, which under Section 12, Rule II, prior to its 2008 amendment, meant 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 a credible witness. The purported affiants presented only community tax certificates. The Court has long disregarded a community tax certificate or cedula as competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual and is easily obtained; it was not included in the list of competent evidence in Section 12, Rule II. The registered owners Sayon, Donata, and Enoch had died in 1984, 1994, and 1993, respectively, and could not have appeared before Atty. Bijis in 2006. His defense that impostors appeared before him was unpersuasive: had he demanded photograph-and-signature-bearing identification documents, he would have discovered the imposture. By accepting residence certificates, he made it appear that the purported affiants personally appeared and subscribed the SPAs and the real estate mortgage, in violation of the Notarial Rules and to Ong's detriment. The real estate mortgage was also pre-signed: Ong did not personally appear before Atty. Bijis, and he did not claim that the persons who appeared before him signed the instruments in his presence; the document was therefore pre-signed, contrary to the duty of notaries public to demand that documents be signed in their presence to guard against illegal deeds. A notary public who violates the Notarial Rules also violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. The penalty for such violations includes revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law; recent jurisprudence imposes revocation and two-year disqualification, plus six months' suspension for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties. The IBP-BOG's penalty was thus affirmed.

• Notarial Practice — Personal Appearance and Competent Evidence of Identity — Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, an acknowledgment requires the signatory to appear in person before the notary public and to be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 2(b), Rule IV prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence and is not personally known or otherwise identified through competent evidence. Section 12, Rule II, prior to the 2008 amendment, defines competent evidence of identity as 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, or of two credible witnesses. Atty. Bijis admitted he did not personally know the affiants and accepted only community tax certificates, so he failed this requirement.
• Community Tax Certificate as Incompetent Evidence of Identity — A community tax certificate or cedula is not competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual and is easily obtained. The Court has consistently disregarded it for notarization purposes, and it was not included in the list of competent evidence under Section 12, Rule II. Atty. Bijis's reliance on residence certificates was therefore a violation.
• Duty to Ensure Signing in the Notary's Presence — A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who executed it and personally appeared before the notary to attest to its contents and truth. This requirement allows the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. The real estate mortgage notarized by Atty. Bijis appeared pre-signed, and Ong did not personally appear before him, which was a deviation from the Notarial Rules.
• Notarization as a Matter of Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty or meaningless act done by rote; it converts a private document into a public document and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. The law accords a notarized document full faith and credit, and courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely on the notary's acknowledgment. Notaries public must therefore observe the basic requirements with utmost care.
• Lawyer's Liability Under the Code of Professional Responsibility — A notary public who violates the Notarial Rules also fails 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, and violates Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. The penalties are revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with terms varying by circumstance; recent jurisprudence imposes two years' disqualification and six months' suspension for notarizing without the parties' appearance.

• "It is therefore sacrosanct that 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 or her to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein." — States the core duty of a notary public and the rationale for requiring personal appearance and identity verification.
• "The Court has long since disregarded a community tax certificate or a cedula as a valid and competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual, which the Notarial Rules deem as the more appropriate and competent means by which notaries public can ascertain the person's identity." — Defines why a community tax certificate cannot satisfy the competent-evidence-of-identity requirement under the Notarial Rules.
• "It is not an empty and meaningless act, or one done by rote. Rather, it is invested with substantive public interest because it converts a private document into a public document and thus makes that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — Explains the public-interest character of notarization and why notaries must observe their duties with care.
• "Had Atty. Bijis been more conscientious in performing his duties as notary public and asked for their photograph-and-signature bearing identification documents required by the Notarial Rules, he would have immediately discovered that the persons before him were not who they represented to be." — Rejects the impostor defense by tying it to the notary's failure to demand competent evidence of identity.

• Baylon vs. Almo, A.C. No. 6962, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 248 — Cited for the unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving identity and for the Court's exclusion of the cedula from the list of competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules.
• Dandoy vs. Edayan, 832 Phil. 132, 140 (2018) — Cited in support of the notary public's duty to be more conscientious and of the consequences of accepting residence certificates as proof of identity.
• Coquia vs. Laforteza, A.C. No. 9364 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3696), February 8, 2017, 817 SCRA 129, 142 — Cited for the duty of notaries public to demand that the document presented for notarization be signed in their presence, to guard against illegal deeds.
• Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498, 504 — Cited for the rule that a notarized document is accorded full faith and credit upon its face and may be relied upon by courts, administrative agencies, and the public.
• Roa-Buenafe vs. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019, 897 SCRA 449, 456-457 — Cited for the injunction that notaries public observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties.
• Ko vs. Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604), March 6, 2019, 895 SCRA 75, 91 — Cited for the penalties for a notary public who fails to discharge his duties: revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.
• Bakidol vs. Bilog, AC No. 11174, June 10, 2019 (Unsigned Resolution), citing Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 168 Phil. 1, 9 (2015) — Cited for the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties.

• Section 1, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "acknowledgment" as requiring the signatory to appear in person before the notary public, be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Atty. Bijis failed to comply because the purported affiants were not personally known to him and were not identified through competent evidence.
• 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 to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Atty. Bijis notarized the documents despite the absence of these requisites.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (prior to the 2008 amendment) — 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, or of two credible witnesses. Atty. Bijis accepted only community tax certificates, which do not meet this definition.
• A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, amending Section 12(a), Rule II — Provides examples of current identification documents bearing photograph and signature, such as passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, and others. The amendment confirms that a community tax certificate is not competent evidence of identity.
• 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. Violation of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a failure to adhere to Canon 1.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Atty. Bijis's negligent notarization was held to violate this rule.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred. M. Lopez, J., was on wellness leave.