Sanchez vs. Inton

A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarizes a document without confirming the signatory’s identity through competent evidence of identity and when he allows non-notaries, such as his secretaries, to perform notarial acts and affix his signature in his behalf.

Ledesma D. Sanchez and Atty. Carlito R. Inton are the complainant and respondent in an administrative proceeding concerning the latter’s performance of notarial duties. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice govern notarial acts, including the requirement that a notary public personally confirm a signatory’s identity through competent evidence of identity and complete the notarial certificate. The Code of Professional Responsibility imposes corresponding ethical duties on lawyers, and notarization is treated as invested with public interest because it converts a private document into a public document. A notarial commission is personal to the lawyer commissioned.

On September 15, 2016, respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton notarized a document denominated as “Kontrata ng Kasunduan” (Kasunduan) at his office in Cabanatuan City. The document identified Dennis C. Garcia as the first party and Ledesma D. Sanchez as the second party, and bore their signatures. According to Sanchez, she did not appear before respondent on that date; she claimed she was at her store located at Fairview Center Mall in Quezon City, and she presented a Sinumpaang Salaysay of her employee Jennen De Leon to corroborate her assertion. Respondent admitted having notarized the Kasunduan on September 15, 2016, but argued that Sanchez had also admitted that fact before the Prosecutor’s Office during the preliminary investigation in the case filed against her by Dennis Garcia, the other signatory.

On February 10, 2017, Sanchez presented a document denominated as “Acknowledgment of Legal Obligation With Promissory Note” (Acknowledgment) for respondent’s notarization. She alleged that respondent’s secretaries, presumably acting in his behalf, did not ask the whereabouts of the signatory of the document and immediately asked for payment and affixed respondent’s signature thereon. Respondent denied having notarized the Acknowledgment and claimed that it does not appear in his notarial book. He attached a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated April 4, 2017, executed by his secretaries Rose Anne Hazel D. Samson and Lannie E. Sorza. He also appealed to Sanchez, citing his age of seventy years and the possibility that the complaint might aggravate his sickness.

The Kasunduan’s jurat did not mention any competent evidence of identity for either party. The quoted jurat stated that the parties signed on September 15, 2016 in Cabanatuan City and that they personally signed before the notary public and attested that their signatures were voluntarily and freely made, but it contained no statement of the identification documents or other competent evidence of identity. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent failed to verify the identities of the signatories to the Kasunduan, which he admitted having notarized, by requiring the presentation of competent evidence of identity under Section 6, in relation to Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules. It also found that regardless of whether Sanchez personally appeared, respondent failed to indicate in the document the parties’ respective competent evidence of identity.

As to the Acknowledgment, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent negligent because his name appeared on the document as the notarizing officer while his secretaries prepared and signed his signature on it. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendation, with modification. The Supreme Court likewise found that respondent allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts in his stead and even to forge his signature, as what happened on February 10, 2017 when the secretaries “notarized” the Acknowledgment and affixed his signature therein.

• Non-appearance Before the Notary: Complainant maintained that she did not appear before respondent on September 15, 2016 when the Kasunduan was notarized, asserting that she was at her store at Fairview Center Mall in Quezon City and presenting the Sinumpaang Salaysay of her employee Jennen De Leon.
• Improper Notarization of the Acknowledgment: Complainant alleged that on February 10, 2017, when she presented the Acknowledgment for notarization, respondent’s secretaries did not ask the whereabouts of the signatory, immediately asked for payment, and affixed respondent’s signature on the document.
• Administrative Sanction: Complainant sought administrative sanction against respondent for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Admission of Notarization: Respondent admitted having notarized the Kasunduan on September 15, 2016, but argued that Sanchez had admitted such fact before the Prosecutor’s Office during the preliminary investigation in the case filed against her by Dennis Garcia.
• Denial of Acknowledgment Notarization: Respondent denied having notarized the Acknowledgment and claimed that it does not appear in his notarial book.
• Mitigating Appeal: Respondent appealed to Sanchez, citing that he was already seventy (70) years old and that the complaint may aggravate his sickness leading to his untimely death.
• Secretaries’ Sinumpaang Salaysay: Respondent attached a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated April 4, 2017 executed by his secretaries Rose Anne Hazel D. Samson and Lannie E. Sorza in support of his arguments.

• Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically for notarizing the Kasunduan without competent evidence of identity and for allowing his secretaries to perform notarial acts and affix his signature on the Acknowledgment.

• Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: Yes. Respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Sanchez through competent evidence of identity and by allowing his secretaries to perform notarial acts in his behalf; the same conduct also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The penalties were suspension from law practice for two years, prohibition from notarial commissioning for two years, and revocation of any incumbent notarial commission.

• Liability for Violation of Notarial Rules: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but 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 entitling it to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements of the Notarial Rules; otherwise, public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents is undermined. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify and must not take part in or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
• Failure to Verify Identity: In notarizing the Kasunduan, respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Sanchez through competent evidence of identity. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules prohibits a notary public from notarizing a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II 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 who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses with the same qualifications. The physical presence of the affiant ensures that the notary can determine whether the signature was voluntarily affixed, while competent evidence of identity ensures that the affiant is the same person claimed. Section 5(b), Rule IV also prohibits a notary public from affixing an official signature or seal on an incomplete notarial certificate. A notarial certificate under Section 8, Rule II must state the facts attested to by the notary public, including the jurat requirements under Section 6, Rule II: personal appearance, personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity, signing in the notary’s presence, and oath or affirmation. Here, it was undisputed that respondent notarized the Kasunduan on September 15, 2016 and did not personally know Sanchez. Although he insisted that Sanchez and Dennis Garcia appeared and presented their identification cards, the document itself belied this claim because there was no mention of any competent evidence of identity for either party, and the jurat remained incomplete. Thus, respondent was remiss in his duties.
• Delegation of Notarial Acts: Respondent violated the Notarial Rules when he allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts in his behalf. Section 7, Rule II defines “notarization” or “notarial act” as any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under the Rules, and a “notary public” as any person commissioned to perform official acts under the same Rules. Under Section 1, Rule VII, a notary public is required to sign by hand on the notarial certificate and affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed. Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must personally administer the notarial acts authorized by law; no other person should perform them. In this case, respondent allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts in his stead and even to forge his signature, as happened on February 10, 2017 when his secretaries “notarized” the Acknowledgment and affixed his signature. As their employer and as notary public, respondent was responsible for their acts and for implementing reasonable measures to prevent abuse of his notarial authority. He was therefore guilty of negligence.
• CPR Violation and Penalty: A breach of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. An erring lawyer who is remiss in his functions as a notary public violates his oath as a lawyer, fails to uphold and obey the law and its legal processes, and commits an act of 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. Respondent’s actions undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. As to penalty, prevailing jurisprudence imposes suspension from the practice of law for one year, immediate revocation of the notarial commission, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. Because respondent had already been previously reprimanded for a similar infraction, the Court imposed suspension from law practice for two years, disqualification from notarial commissioning for two years, and revocation of any existing commission.

• Notarization as a public-interest 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 entitling it to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of the Notarial Rules, and notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify and must not take part in or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
• Competent evidence of identity and personal appearance — Under Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. The notarial certificate, including the jurat, must state the facts attested to by the notary public; an incomplete certificate violates Section 5(b), Rule IV.
• Personal performance of notarial acts — A notarial commission is personal to each lawyer. The notary public must personally administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute, and no other person, including secretaries, should perform them. Allowing secretaries to perform notarial acts and affix the notary’s signature constitutes negligence.
• 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 his oath as a lawyer and commits an act of falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty for violation of the Notarial Rules — Prevailing jurisprudence imposes suspension from the practice of law for one year, immediate revocation of the notarial commission, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. A prior reprimand for a similar infraction justifies increasing the suspension and disqualification to two years.

• “Time and again, the Court has emphasized that 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.” — This passage states the foundational doctrine on the public-interest character of notarization and explains why notaries public must observe the basic requirements of their office with utmost care.
• “a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed the same, and personally appeared before him to attest to the truth of the contents thereof. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and deed.” — This excerpt defines the personal-appearance and identity-verification requirement that respondent failed to satisfy when he notarized the Kasunduan.
• “[s]ince a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also personally administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute. This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other person, other than the notary public, should perform it.” — This passage supplies the rule that respondent violated when he allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts and affix his signature in his behalf.
• “In sum, respondent not only violated the Notarial Rules when he: (a) notarized documents without ascertaining the identity of the person who sought for such notarization; and (b) allowed non-lawyers and non-notaries public to notarize documents on his behalf, but also violated the foregoing provisions of the CPR.” — This excerpt summarizes the Court’s ratio decidendi, linking the two notarial violations to a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr., A.C. No. 12011, June 26, 2018 — Cited for the public-interest character of notarization and for the rule that a breach of the Notarial Rules also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility; also cited for the applicable penalties.
• Vda. de Miller vs. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449, 455 (2015) — Cited in Triol as authority for the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest.
• Almario vs. Llera-Agno, A.C. No. 10689, January 8, 2018, 850 SCRA 1, 10-11 — Cited for the rule that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signers are the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the truth of its contents.
• Gimeno vs. Atty. Zaide, 759 Phil. 10, 20 (2015) — Cited for the rule that a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer and that no person other than the notary public should perform notarial acts.
• Spouses Chambon vs. Atty. Ruiz, A.C. No. 11478, September 5, 2017, 838 SCRA 526, 535 — Cited for the public-interest nature of a notary public’s duties and the need to strip authority from those unqualified to perform them.
• Spouses Leynes vs. Atty. Inton, A.C. No. 9024, June 20, 2016 — Cited as respondent’s prior reprimand for negligence in failing to ascertain that a signatory to a notarized deed of sale had authority to sell the property, which justified the increased penalty.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from notarizing a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied: respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Sanchez.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — 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 who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses with the same qualifications. Applied: respondent did not require or record such evidence for the Kasunduan.
• Section 6, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines the jurat and requires personal appearance before the notary public, personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity, signing in the notary’s presence, and oath or affirmation. Applied: the Kasunduan’s jurat was incomplete and did not state any competent evidence of identity.
• Section 5(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. Applied: respondent notarized the Kasunduan despite its incomplete jurat.
• Section 8, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines “notarial certificate” as the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary’s signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public. Applied: the Kasunduan’s certificate did not state the required facts on identity.
• Section 7, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines “notarization” or “notarial act” as any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under the Rules. Applied: respondent’s secretaries performed notarial acts even though they were not notaries public.
• Section 1, Rule VII, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires a notary public to sign by hand on the notarial certificate and affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed. Applied: respondent’s secretaries affixed his signature on the Acknowledgment in his stead.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied: respondent’s notarial violations also constituted a breach of this ethical rule.
• 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 mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Applied: respondent’s conduct in allowing his signature to be affixed by his secretaries and in notarizing without identity verification violated this rule.

Peralta, C.J., Leonen, Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred. A. Reyes, Jr., J., was on leave; Gesmundo, J., was on official business; Lazaro-Javier, J., was on official leave; and Inting, J., was on official leave.