Piczon-Hermoso vs. Parado

A notary public may not perform a notarial act unless the signatory personally appears before the notary at the time of notarization and is personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity; a lawyer who notarizes without complying with this requirement, or without a valid notarial commission, violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainants Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon Hermoso are successors-in-interest of Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug, the declared owner of Lot No. 3545 situated in Simala, Sibonga, Cebu and registered for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 12357. Atty. Sylvester C. Parado is a lawyer who notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale covering portions of the subject property in favor of Spouses Salvador and Darlwin Cesar. The dispute implicates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which governs notarial acts, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs lawyers’ conduct.

Complainants Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon Hermoso are the successors-in-interest of Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug, who was the declared owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 3545 situated in Simala, Sibonga, Cebu and registered for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 12357. After Estrella’s demise, portions of the subject property were transferred and conveyed to Spouses Salvador and Darlwin Cesar by virtue of two Deeds of Absolute Sale, both notarized by Atty. Sylvester C. Parado on February 15, 2007. The two Deeds had different document numbers, although they pertained to the same property.

Complainants alleged that on the purported date of notarization, Estrella could not have personally executed, appeared, or signed the Deeds before Atty. Parado because she had just been discharged from the hospital in the afternoon of February 15, 2007 after undergoing confinement. As a result of her chemotherapy treatments, her mental faculties were deteriorating, making it impossible for her to attend to her personal affairs and enter into a contract of sale. Complainants similarly alleged that Michelangelo C. Patalinghug, Estrella’s blind husband, could not have appeared, signed, and executed the Deeds before Atty. Parado because he was already bedridden even before then and remained so until his demise on August 13, 2007.

Stressing the impossibility of the execution of the Deeds notarized by Atty. Parado, complainants filed the administrative case against him before the Court. Despite several directives from the Court to file his comment, Atty. Parado failed to do so. When the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation, the IBP required him to submit an answer and directed the parties to submit mandatory conference briefs and position papers; however, only complainants complied, and Atty. Parado neither submitted any pleading nor appeared during the mandatory conference.

The IBP found that Atty. Parado notarized the subject Deeds without Estrella and Michelangelo personally appearing before him on February 15, 2007 due to serious physical illness. It also found that Atty. Parado was not a commissioned notary public in 2007. The IBP Commissioner further noted Atty. Parado’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, submit his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance or exemption, and update the IBP of his personal circumstances.

• Impossibility of Estrella’s Appearance: Complainants alleged that Estrella could not have personally executed, appeared, or signed the Deeds before Atty. Parado on February 15, 2007 because she had just been discharged from the hospital that afternoon after confinement, and her chemotherapy treatments had deteriorated her mental faculties, making it impossible for her to attend to personal affairs and enter into a contract of sale.
• Michelangelo’s Incapacity: Complainants alleged that Michelangelo, Estrella’s blind husband, could not have appeared, signed, and executed the Deeds before Atty. Parado because he was already bedridden before that date and remained so until his demise on August 13, 2007.
• Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Complainants filed the administrative complaint on the ground that Atty. Parado notarized the two Deeds without the affiants personally appearing before him, in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Parado should be held administratively liable for notarizing the two Deeds of Absolute Sale despite the affiants’ alleged non-appearance and his lack of a notarial commission in 2007.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being appointed as notary public is proper.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. Parado was held administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10, because he notarized the Deeds without the affiants personally appearing and without being a commissioned notary public in 2007.
• Penalty: Suspension from the practice of law for two years, prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, if any. The Court found these penalties appropriate based on a similar case.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless 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 entitling it to full faith and credit. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires a duly-commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act only if the signatory is personally in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. The purpose is to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed. A breach of this notarial rule also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, because a lawyer remiss in notarial functions violates the lawyer’s oath and commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10. Here, Atty. Parado failed to file any comment or answer despite due notice and did not appear at the mandatory conference, leaving complainants’ allegations uncontroverted. The IBP found that he notarized the Deeds without Estrella and Michelangelo personally appearing before him on February 15, 2007 due to serious physical illness, and that he was not a commissioned notary public in 2007. On both counts, he violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public in 2007, he also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization, falling short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of lawyers. He also displayed lack of respect for the Court, the IBP, and its proceedings by failing to comply with their directives; under Ngayan vs. Tugade, such failure to answer the complaint and appear at the investigation is evidence of flouting resistance to lawful orders and despiciency for the oath of office.
• Penalty: The Court considered the similar case of Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr., where the erring lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for two years, his notarial commission was immediately revoked if existing, and he was disqualified from being appointed as notary public for two years. Finding these sanctions appropriate, the Court imposed the same penalties on Atty. Parado. The suspension, prohibition, and revocation were ordered to take effect immediately upon his receipt of the Decision.

• Notarization as a substantive public act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless 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 its authenticity, and entitles it to full faith and credit. A notary public must observe utmost care in performing notarial duties; otherwise, public confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. The Court applied this principle in condemning Atty. Parado’s notarization of the Deeds without the affiants’ personal appearance and without a notarial commission.
• Personal appearance requirement under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Section 2(b), Rule IV requires a duly-commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act only if the signatory is personally in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. The notary may not notarize unless the persons who signed are the same persons who executed and personally appeared to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose is to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed. Atty. Parado violated this requirement because Estrella and Michelangelo did not personally appear due to serious physical illness.
• Breach of notarial rules as violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer found remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer and commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibit such conduct. Atty. Parado violated these provisions by misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public in 2007 and by notarizing the Deeds without the affiants’ personal appearance.
• Failure to comply with lawful orders as evidence of disrespect — A lawyer’s failure to answer the complaint against him and failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of flouting resistance to lawful orders and illustrate despiciency for the oath of office. Atty. Parado failed to comply with the separate directives of the Court and the IBP to file his comment and answer, showing lack of respect for the Court, the IBP, and its proceedings.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless 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." — This passage defines the public-interest character of notarization and explains why notarial duties must be performed with utmost care.
• "Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires a duly-commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act only if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is: (a) in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (b) personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules." — This is the controlling statutory requisites provision applied against Atty. Parado.
• "In other words, a notary public is not allowed to 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 truth of what are stated therein." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the personal appearance requirement under the notarial rules.
• "By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public at the time of the alleged notarization in 2007, Atty. Parado also violated the provisions of the CPR, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 thereof." — This passage applies the Code of Professional Responsibility to a lawyer who notarizes without authority and without the affiants’ appearance.

• Vda. de Miller vs. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449, 455 (2015) — Cited for the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit; the Court relied on this in explaining the importance of notarial duties.
• Fabay vs. Resuena, 779 Phil. 151, 158 (2016) — Cited for the purpose of the personal appearance requirement: to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.
• De Jesus vs. Sanchez-Malit, 738 Phil. 480, 491-492 (2014) — Cited for the rule that a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as the erring lawyer commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
• Ngayan vs. Tugade, 271 Phil. 654 (1991) — Cited for the rule that a lawyer’s failure to answer the complaint and failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of flouting resistance to lawful orders and illustrate despiciency for the oath of office.
• Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr., A.C. No. 12011, June 26, 2018, 868 SCRA 175 — Cited as a similar case in which the Court imposed suspension from law practice for two years, immediate revocation of notarial commission if existing, and disqualification from appointment as notary public for two years; the Court found these penalties appropriate.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied: Atty. Parado notarized the Deeds despite Estrella and Michelangelo not personally appearing and despite not being commissioned in 2007.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied: Atty. Parado’s misrepresentation as a commissioned notary public and notarization without personal appearance constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct.
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Applied: Atty. Parado’s false notarization and failure to comply with Court and IBP directives violated this duty.
• 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. Applied: Atty. Parado committed falsehood by notarizing without authority and without the affiants’ appearance.

Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.