Re: Order Dated January 7, 2020 of Judge Ignacio I. Alajar vs. Atty. Ely F. Azarraga

A lawyer-notary who notarizes documents without the signatory's personal presence and without competent evidence of identity violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr. was a commissioned notary public since 2001. The case is governed by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which regulates notarial acts, authorizes the Executive Judge to initiate administrative proceedings and impose sanctions, and requires that a signatory be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The Code of Professional Responsibility supplies the parallel ethical standards, including the prohibition on unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and on falsehood or misleading the court. These rules are impressed with public interest because notarization affects the integrity of public documents.

On May 8, 2019, a Petition for Issuance of a Second Owner's Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-44662 was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City. The petition was signed by respondent on behalf of petitioner Brenda Natividad, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Aida Palomar Dela Cruz. Attached to the petition were a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated May 2, 2019, appointing Dela Cruz as attorney-in-fact, and an Affidavit of Loss dated April 22, 2019, both allegedly executed by Brenda. The Verification of the Petition and the SPA were notarized by respondent without requiring Brenda to present any competent evidence of identity, with the annotation "AFFIANT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME." Respondent also notarized the Affidavit of Loss without requiring any competent evidence of identity.

After a Notice of Hearing was posted, but before the RTC could hear the case, Lucien Natividad, the former father-in-law of Brenda, filed an Opposition dated November 5, 2019, claiming that the original owner's duplicate copy of the subject TCT was in his possession and attaching the same. The Opposition included affidavits of Brenda, now Brenda D. Custodio, and her former husband Joselito F. Natividad, whose signatures appear in the SPA, stating that Brenda did not sign the petition, that the signatures appearing in the SPA were not theirs, and that the original owner's duplicate copy of the TCT subject of the petition was not lost and was in the possession of Lucien.

In an Order dated November 29, 2019, the RTC dismissed the petition and ordered Dela Cruz and respondent to appear in open court. In a subsequent Order dated December 9, 2019, the RTC ordered Dela Cruz to show cause why no case should be filed against her for executing the documents contrary to Brenda's allegations, and likewise ordered respondent to show cause why his notarial commission should not be revoked for notarizing the documents without requiring proper identification.

Respondent filed a Manifestation dated December 16, 2019, conveying his sincere and deepest apology and explaining that the incident was an oversight. He stated that he was not in bad faith, had no dishonest or selfish motives, and was a victim of circumstances for relying on the confirmation and assurance made to him by Dela Cruz. He also mentioned that no actual or potential injury was caused to any private party and that Dela Cruz had actual interest in the property involved. In an Affidavit dated December 13, 2019 attached to his Manifestation, Dela Cruz alleged that her sister, Maria Palomar-Ali, bought the property from Jose and Procesa Natividad through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed in 1994; that Jose and Procesa are the parents of Lucien, the oppositor, and Gilda Natividad, the wife of their brother Eduardo Palomar; that she and her sister had been in material possession of the property from the time of sale until the present, but the transfer and titling had not been processed due to the trust and relationship between them; that she recently learned the title was transferred to Brenda and referred the matter to the Registry of Deeds in Roxas City, where a personnel advised her to file a Petition for Lost Title; that the personnel brought her to respondent's office to have the petition and other documents prepared; that respondent required the presence and identification of Brenda for the execution of the documents, but Dela Cruz insisted that she would just bring the documents to Brenda for her signature; that after they went out of respondent's office, the personnel suggested that Dela Cruz sign the documents herself, which she did in good faith due to her interest in the property; and that when they returned to respondent's office a couple of days later, respondent demanded the identification of Brenda and Joselito, but they assured him that the latter signed the documents and that their identification would be submitted at a later date.

The Executive Judge found that Brenda and Joselito did not sign the Verification on the Petition, the SPA, and the Affidavit of Loss, and that Dela Cruz signed them herself. Consequently, the annotation respondent made that Brenda was personally known to him was false. The Executive Judge also found respondent's defense that nobody suffered any loss or injury untenable, as a notary public's duties are dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.

• Reduction of Penalty: Respondent admitted the factual circumstances as found by the Executive Judge but sought reduction of the penalty for humanitarian and equitable considerations, citing that this was his first offense since being commissioned as a notary public in 2001, that his notarial practice supports his spouse who suffers complications from severe diabetes and recuperates from a kidney operation, and his minor daughter who is physically disabled and blind.
• Absence of Bad Faith: Respondent maintained that he had no dishonest or selfish motive and was not in bad faith, as he relied on the confirmation and assurance made to him that the documents were indeed signed by the persons named therein.
• No Injury: Respondent argued that no actual or potential injury was caused to any private party and that Dela Cruz had actual interest in the property involved.
• Procedural Basis: Respondent invoked Sections 1(c) and (d), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in filing his Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a notary public whose notarial commission is suspended by the Executive Judge may appeal directly to the Supreme Court under Section 1(c), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents without the signatories' personal presence and without competent evidence of identity.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law is appropriate under the circumstances.

• Proper Remedy: Yes. Section 1(c), Rule XI allows an aggrieved party to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the order imposing disciplinary sanctions is immediately executory pending appeal; a motion for reconsideration was also available but not exclusive.
• Violation of Notarial Rules: Yes. Respondent notarized the Verification, SPA, and Affidavit of Loss without Brenda's presence and without competent evidence of identity, and falsely annotated that she was personally known to him, violating Section 1, Rule II; Section 1(b)(7), Rule XI; and Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. A breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, and Rule 10.01.
• Penalty: The penalty is imposed but proportionately reduced: revocation of the incumbent notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, suspension from the practice of law for six months, and a stern warning.

• Proper Remedy: The Executive Judge initiated administrative proceedings motu proprio under Section 1(d), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Under Section 1(c), Rule XI, if the charges are established, the Executive Judge imposes the appropriate administrative sanctions, and the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review; pending appeal, the order imposing disciplinary sanctions is immediately executory unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant stated that respondent should have filed a motion for reconsideration instead of a Petition for Review; the Court agreed that a motion for reconsideration was available and not prohibited by any existing rule, but either remedy did not stay execution. The Court noted that it would be prudent to consider amending the Rules to clarify the proper mode and period of appeal and to harmonize the same with Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Upon taking cognizance of the administrative case, the Court may revoke, shorten, or extend the suspension, or impose additional disciplinary sanctions as the facts may warrant.
• Violation of Notarial Rules: The Executive Judge found that Brenda and Joselito did not sign the Verification on the Petition, the SPA, and the Affidavit of Loss, and that Dela Cruz signed them herself. Respondent admitted the factual circumstances as found by the Executive Judge. The annotation "AFFIANT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" was therefore false. Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires that in an acknowledgment, the attesting individual be personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 1(b)(7), Rule XI treats failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act as a ground for revocation and administrative sanctions. Section 2(b), Rule IV 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. Respondent's reliance on assurances did not excuse compliance, as a notary public's duties are dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
• Code of Professional Responsibility: A breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility because an erring lawyer found remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer. He fails to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and its legal processes and commits an act of falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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. The Court cited Triol vs. Atty. Agcaoili, Jr. and De Guzman vs. Atty. Venzon in support.
• Penalty: Prevailing jurisprudence in Dr. Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, Ko vs. Atty. Uy-Lampasa, and De Guzman vs. Atty. Venzon imposed immediate revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months on lawyers-notaries who notarized documents without the presence of the executing parties. The Court did not depart from these pronouncements but proportionately reduced the penalty because respondent's suspension of his notarial commission of one year had been partially served since his receipt of the Order on January 9, 2020; this was his first offense as a notary public since being commissioned in 2001; and his outright admission of guilt, repeated conveyance of remorse, and personal circumstances raised in his Petition for Review invited compassion for humanitarian and equitable considerations. The Court still revoked his incumbent commission, disqualified him for one year, suspended him from law practice for six months, and sternly warned him.

• Notarial Practice and Public Policy — Notarization is impressed with public interest, and a notary public must require the signatory's personal presence and competent evidence of identity. The Court applied this by finding respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized documents without Brenda's presence and without competent evidence of identity, despite his reliance on assurances.
• Breach of Notarial Rules as Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer who is remiss in his functions as a notary public violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 10, Rule 10.01, which prohibits falsehood and misleading the court. The Court applied this to impose disciplinary sanctions beyond the notarial commission.
• Proper Remedy and Immediately Executory Sanctions — Under Section 1(c), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, an aggrieved party may appeal to the Supreme Court from the Executive Judge's disciplinary order, and the order is immediately executory pending appeal unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise. The Court applied this by taking cognizance of respondent's Petition for Review despite the Office of the Bar Confidant's view that a motion for reconsideration was the proper remedy.
• Proportionality in Disciplinary Penalties — While prevailing jurisprudence imposes revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and suspension from law practice for six months for notarizing without the presence of the executing parties, the Court may reduce the penalty for partial service, first offense, admission of guilt, remorse, and humanitarian circumstances. The Court applied this to reduce the disqualification to one year.

• "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 the 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 is Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the prohibition the Court found respondent breached when he notarized the documents without Brenda's presence and without competent evidence of identity.
• "in the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice would also constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an erring lawyer who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well." — This passage states the ratio linking a notarial violation to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, justifying disciplinary sanctions against respondent as a lawyer.
• "the erring respondent lawyers-notaries public were found guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the executing parties and were uniformly meted with the penalties of immediate revocation of their notarial commissions, disqualification from being commissioned as notaries public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months." — This passage summarizes the prevailing jurisprudence on the penalty for notarizing documents without the presence of the executing parties, from which the Court declined to depart but reduced proportionately.
• "Without departing from the above pronouncements, however, the Court deems it necessary to proportionately reduce the penalty imposed in the instant case considering that: (1) respondent's suspension of his notarial commission of one year has been partially served since his receipt of the Order on January 9, 2020; (2) this is respondent's first offense as a notary public since being commissioned in 2001; and (3) respondent's outright admission of guilt, repeated conveyance of remorse, and his personal circumstances raised in his Petition for Review invite compassion from the Court for humanitarian and equitable considerations." — This passage explains the Court's basis for reducing the disqualification period to one year while still imposing revocation and suspension from law practice.

• Dr. Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017) — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence imposing revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and suspension from law practice for six months on lawyers-notaries who notarized documents without the executing parties' presence.
• Ko vs. Atty. Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584, March 6, 2019 — Cited alongside Dr. Malvar and De Guzman for the same uniform penalties for notarizing without the presence of the executing parties.
• De Guzman vs. Atty. Venzon, A.C. No. 8559, July 27, 2020 — Cited for the same penalties and for the principle that a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Triol vs. Atty. Agcaoili, Jr., 834 Phil. 154, 159 (2018) — Cited for the rule that an erring lawyer remiss in notarial functions violates the lawyer's oath and commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
• Yap vs. Atty. Dantes, A.C. No. 11741, June 19, 2019 (Minute Resolution) — Cited in support of the reduction of the penalty for humanitarian and equitable considerations.

• Section 1, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that in an acknowledgment, the attesting individual is personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Respondent violated this by notarizing the Verification and SPA without requiring Brenda's competent evidence of identity.
• Section 1(b)(7), Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Lists failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act as a ground for revocation and administrative sanctions. The Executive Judge and the Court found respondent liable under this ground.
• Section 1(c), Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that if the charges are established, the Executive Judge imposes the appropriate administrative sanctions, and the aggrieved party may appeal to the Supreme Court; the order is immediately executory pending appeal unless otherwise ordered. The Court used this provision in discussing the proper remedy.
• Section 1(d), Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Authorizes the Executive Judge to motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public. The Executive Judge did so in this case.
• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not personally in the notary's presence and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. The Court found respondent breached this provision.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent's false annotation and notarization without presence violated this provision.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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. Respondent's false annotation violated this provision.
• Sections 16 and 17, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Cited by the Office of the Bar Confidant as covering the administrative case and the proper procedure; the Court noted the need to harmonize the 2004 Rules with Rule 139-B.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.