Sambile vs. Ignacio

A notary public who notarizes a document without the signatories’ personal appearance violates Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and, by falsely certifying their appearance, violates Rule 10.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice cannot be applied retroactively to a notarization performed before their effectivity.

Complainants Marciano A. Sambile and Lerma M. Sambile are the donee and his spouse in a Deed of Donation executed by Remedios Sambile, Marciano’s adoptive mother, with the marital consent of Herminio Sambile, Marciano’s adoptive father. Respondent Atty. Renato A. Ignacio is a lawyer and notary public before whom the Deed was purportedly notarized. The disciplinary complaint implicates the notarial acknowledgment requirements then governed by Public Act No. 2103 and the ethical standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility; the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, invoked by complainants, had not yet taken effect when the notarization occurred.

Complainants Marciano A. Sambile and Lerma M. Sambile are spouses. Remedios Sambile, Marciano’s adoptive mother, and Herminio Sambile, Remedios’s husband and Marciano’s adoptive father, were the donors in a Deed of Donation involving Marciano as donee. On February 15, 2002, Remedios came to the complainants’ house and asked them to sign a document. Because they were busy hosting their daughter’s birthday party, they simply signed it. After signing, Remedios left; shortly thereafter, she returned and furnished them a copy of a document denominated as a Deed of Donation.

The Deed of Donation was signed by Remedios as donor, with the marital consent of Herminio; by Marciano as donee, with the marital consent of Lerma; and it was notarized before respondent Atty. Renato A. Ignacio on even date. Complainants later received notice that Remedios had filed a complaint for annulment of the deed of donation against them, alleging that the Deed of Donation in favor of Marciano was falsified because Herminio could not have signed it on February 15, 2002, having died on July 17, 1987.

Complainants contended that they had nothing to do with the falsification; they were merely made to sign the document and accept the donation. They also asserted that they never appeared before respondent, the notary public before whom the Deed of Donation was purportedly notarized. In support, they attached a Certification executed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Cavite City, which stated that a copy of the subject Deed of Donation was not among the notarial documents submitted by respondent before it for the year 2002.

On February 15, 2005, complainants filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines a verified complaint against respondent for disciplinary action for notarizing a document without their personal appearance. They contended that respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent did not file his position paper.

The IBP-CBD found that respondent had notarized the Deed of Donation despite complainants not appearing before him and had failed to submit a copy of the Deed with his report to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. It characterized the notarization as dubious, citing the Certification and the fact that the donor’s spouse, who had been dead since 1987, purportedly signed the Deed in 2002.

• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Complainants alleged that respondent notarized the Deed of Donation even though they never appeared before him, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Falsification and Lack of Involvement: Complainants maintained that they had nothing to do with the falsification of the Deed, as they were only made to sign the document and accept the donation.
• Absence of Notarial Report: Complainants cited the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Cavite City stating that the subject Deed was not among the notarial documents submitted by respondent for 2002, as proof that they never appeared before him.

• Personal Appearance in Notarization: Whether respondent violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 by notarizing the Deed of Donation despite the complainants’ failure to personally appear before him.
• Applicability of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Whether respondent may be held liable under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for a notarization performed in 2002.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Whether respondent’s act of acknowledging the parties’ personal appearance when they did not appear violated Rule 10.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
• Penalty: Whether suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public, and warning are warranted.

• Personal Appearance in Notarization: Yes. Respondent violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 by notarizing the Deed of Donation without the complainants’ personal appearance.
• Applicability of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: No. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice could not be applied because the notarization occurred in 2002, before the rules took effect.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Yes. By falsely acknowledging that the parties personally appeared, respondent violated Rule 10.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his oath not to do falsehood.
• Penalty: Yes. The Court imposed suspension for one year, revocation of notarial commission if extant, prohibition from notarial commission for two years, and a warning.

• Personal Appearance in Notarization: The IBP’s finding that respondent notarized the Deed despite complainants’ non-appearance was undisputed. Respondent was given ample opportunity to refute the allegations but ignored the notices and directives to appear and file his position paper. The Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cavite City attested that no copy of the Deed was on file, and the donor’s spouse, who had been dead since 1987, purportedly signed the Deed in 2002; these facts showed that the notarization was dubious. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest; only qualified or authorized persons may act as notaries, and notaries must observe utmost care. Under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, the acknowledgment must be made before a notary public, who must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of the document. Respondent’s failure to require the parties to personally appear violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103.
• Applicability of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court held that respondent could not be adjudged to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for the failure to require personal appearance because, at the time the Deed was notarized in 2002, the 2004 Rules were not yet in force. Liability therefore had to rest on the law in effect at the time of the notarization, Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: As found by the IBP, in acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before him when they did not, respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall do no falsehood. Rule 10.01 prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. His act of notarizing the Deed without the required presence of the complainants under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land.
• Penalty: For violating Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked if still extant, he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years effective immediately, and he was warned that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Copies of the Resolution were ordered entered into his personal records and furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.

• Notarization as a Substantive Public Interest Act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution, and entitles the notarial document to full faith and credit upon its face. Notaries must observe utmost care in complying with elementary formalities; otherwise public confidence in the integrity of this form of conveyance is undermined. The Court applied this doctrine to condemn respondent’s dubious notarization of the Deed of Donation.
• Personal Appearance Requirement in Notarial Acknowledgments — Under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, an acknowledgment must be made before a notary public, who must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties enables the notary to verify the genuineness of the affiant’s signature. Respondent violated this requirement when he notarized the Deed despite complainants’ non-appearance.
• Lawyer’s Duty of Honesty and Obedience to Law — Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 1 requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land, and the lawyer’s oath binds him to do no falsehood. A lawyer who falsely certifies that parties personally appeared before him when they did not violates these ethical duties. The Court found respondent liable under Rule 10.01 and Canon 1.
• Non-retroactivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice cannot govern a notarization performed before their effectivity. For a notarization in 2002, liability for failure to require personal appearance must be based on the law then in force, Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103. The Court thus declined to hold respondent liable under the 2004 Rules.

• "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, drawn from Legaspi vs. Landrito, states the public-interest character of notarization and explains why notaries must observe utmost care.
• "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 truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant." — This passage, drawn from Bautista vs. Bernabe, supplies the canonical formulation of the personal-appearance requirement violated by respondent.
• "Respondent, however, could not be adjudged to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for such failure for the reason that at the time the subject Deed of Donation was notarized in 2002, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was not yet in force." — This passage is the ratio for rejecting retroactive application of the 2004 Rules and grounding liability instead on Public Act No. 2103.
• "As correctly found by the IBP, in acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before him when they, in fact, did not do so, respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of the CPR and [his] oath as a lawyer that [he] shall do no falsehood." — This passage identifies the ethical violation arising from the false notarial acknowledgment.

• Legaspi vs. Landrito, 590 Phil. 1, 6 (2008) — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act and is invested with substantive public interest; notaries must observe utmost care.
• Bautista vs. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 240 (2006) — Cited for the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of the document.
• Spouses Martires vs. Chua, 707 Phil. 34, 46 (2013) — Cited in support of the finding that the notarization of the Deed of Donation was dubious.
• Social Security Commission vs. Atty. Corral, 483 Phil. 316, 320 (2004) — Cited in relation to the violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103.
• Heirs of Amado Celestial vs. Heirs of Editha G. Celestial, 455 Phil. 704, 716-717 (2003) — Cited in relation to the violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103.
• De Jesus vs. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, 738 Phil. 480, 493 (2014) — Cited in relation to the violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath.

• Section 1(a), Public Act No. 2103 — Requires acknowledgment before a notary public or officer duly authorized, who must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. Applied: respondent violated this provision by notarizing the Deed without the complainants’ personal appearance.
• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied: respondent’s false acknowledgment that the parties personally appeared violated this rule.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land. Applied: respondent’s violation of Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 constituted a violation of Canon 1.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Cited by complainants and the IBP as a basis for liability. Not applied because the notarization occurred in 2002, before the rules took effect.
• Section 12(b), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Provides for transmission of the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution and records to the Court for final action. Applied: the IBP transmitted the Resolution and records to the Court for final action.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.