Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr.

A lawyer who notarizes a document without the signatory's personal appearance and without a notarial commission violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from law practice and disqualification from notarial commission.

Complainant Nicanor D. Triol and his sister Grace D. Triol were co-owners of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129010. Respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. is a lawyer whose notarial acts are governed by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Nicanor D. Triol and his sister, Grace D. Triol, were co-owners of a parcel of land with an area of 408.80 square meters situated in Quezon City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129010. Sometime in January 2011, complainant decided to sell the subject land to Leonardo P. Caparas, but he could not obtain Grace's signature because she was already residing in the United States at that time.

Complainant later discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 11, 2011 had been executed and notarized by respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., supposedly conveying the subject land to Fajardo. According to complainant, neither he nor Grace authorized or consented to the deed, and neither personally appeared before respondent when it was notarized. He also found that the purported community tax certificates stated in the deed were fake. On November 3, 2014, complainant filed an administrative complaint seeking respondent's disbarment.

In his defense, respondent disavowed knowledge of the execution and notarization of the subject deed and claimed that he did not know complainant, Grace, and Caparas. He maintained that his signature on the deed was forged, that he would never notarize an instrument without the signatory parties personally appearing before him, and that he could not have notarized it because he was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011. In his Answer, he provided a specimen signature to support his forgery defense.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent was not aware of the execution and notarization and that the signature on the subject deed was not his based on the specimen signature he supplied. CIBD Dir. Esguerra later observed that respondent failed to substantiate the genuineness and authenticity of his specimen signature because he did not submit a copy of his signature from the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other official document containing the same specimen. Complainant also presented certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City showing that respondent was not a commissioned notary public in 2011 and 2012; both complainant and Grace could not have personally appeared before respondent because Grace was already residing in the United States at the time of the supposed notarization.

• Lack of Authority and Consent: Complainant alleged that the subject deed was executed and notarized by respondent without the authority or consent of complainant and Grace.
• Absence at Notarization: Complainant alleged that neither he nor Grace personally appeared before respondent when the subject deed was notarized.
• Fake Community Tax Certificates: Complainant alleged that the purported community tax certificates stated in the subject deed were fake.
• Disbarment: Complainant prayed for respondent's disbarment.

• Lack of Knowledge: Respondent disavowed knowledge of the execution and notarization of the subject deed and claimed he did not know complainant, Grace, and Caparas.
• Forgery: Respondent maintained that his signature on the subject deed was forged.
• No Personal Appearance Exception: Respondent asserted he would never notarize an instrument without the signatory parties personally appearing before him.
• Lack of Commission: Respondent asserted he could not have notarized the deed because he was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility; he was suspended from law practice for two years, prohibited from notarial commission for two years, and his incumbent commission was revoked, if any.

• 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 a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules 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 to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. A notary public is not allowed to notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth, so that the notary may verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. A breach of the 2004 Notarial Rules also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility because an erring lawyer remiss in notarial functions violates his oath and commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Here, records show respondent notarized the subject deed without complainant and Grace personally appearing before him and without the requisite notarial commission in 2011. Complainant and Grace could not have personally appeared because Grace was already residing in the United States at the time of the supposed notarization, and certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City showed respondent was not a commissioned notary public in 2011 and 2012. Respondent's bare denials and unsubstantiated forgery defense failed to rebut complainant's allegations and evidence; his specimen signature was insufficient because he did not submit a copy of his signature from the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other official document containing the same specimen. Thus, no reasonable conclusion could be reached other than that respondent notarized the subject deed in violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public, he also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public, and degraded the function of notarization. The penalties of suspension from law practice for two years, disqualification from notarial commission for two years, and revocation of any existing commission were therefore just and proper.

• Notarization as a matter of substantive public interest — 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 a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The Court applied this to stress that a notary public must observe the basic requirements of notarial duties with utmost care, failing which public confidence in notarized documents is undermined.
• Personal appearance and identification requirement — Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public may perform a notarial act only if the signatory is personally in the notary's presence at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The purpose is to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signatory's signature and ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. The Court found this violated because complainant and Grace did not personally appear before respondent.
• Breach of notarial rules as violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A breach of the 2004 Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility because an erring lawyer remiss in notarial functions violates the lawyer's oath and commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. The Court applied this through Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10, finding respondent misrepresented himself as a commissioned notary public.
• Bare denial and unsubstantiated forgery defense — Where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of the defense, the determination that the violation was committed is sustained. The Court held respondent's bare denials and unsubstantiated forgery defense insufficient, especially because his specimen signature was not shown genuine and authentic through official records.
• Penalty for notarial violations — Prior cases imposed disqualification as notary public for two years for notarizing documents without the parties' presence, and suspension from law practice for two years for repeatedly performing notarial acts without the requisite commission. The Court imposed suspension for two years, disqualification from notarial commission for two years, and revocation of any incumbent commission.

• "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. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined." — This passage states the Court's foundational rationale for the high standard imposed on notaries public and explains why notarial violations carry serious administrative consequences.
• "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. 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 act and deed." — This passage articulates the personal-appearance requirement under the 2004 Notarial Rules and the rationale for requiring the notary to verify identity and voluntariness.
• "a breach of the aforesaid provision of the 2004 Notarial Rules 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 establishes the link between notarial misconduct and a lawyer's ethical obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• "where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed the violation is sustained." — This passage supplies the evidentiary rule applied against respondent, whose denials and forgery claim were unsupported by competent proof.

• Vda. de Miller vs. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449, 455 (2015) — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
• De Jesus vs. Sanchez-Malit, 738 Phil. 480, 491-492 (2014) — Cited in support of the public-interest characterization of notarization and the principle that an erring notary commits falsehood and unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
• Fabay vs. Resuena, A.C. No. 8723, January 26, 2016, 782 SCRA 1, 8 — Cited for the requirement that the signatory must personally appear before the notary and for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the signature and the document's free execution.
• Tenoso vs. Echanez, 709 Phil. 1 (2013) — Cited for the penalty of suspension from law practice for two years and disqualification from notarial commission for two years for repeated notarial acts without the requisite commission; also cited on the effect of bare denials.
• Dizon vs. Cabucana, Jr., 729 Phil. 109 (2014) — Cited as one of the cases imposing disqualification as notary public for two years for notarizing documents without the presence of the parties.
• Isenhardt vs. Real, 682 Phil. 19 (2012) — Cited for the same penalty for notarizing without the parties' presence.
• Bautista vs. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 (2006) — Cited for the same penalty for notarizing without the parties' presence.
• Gonzales vs. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345 (2005) — Cited for the same penalty for notarizing without the parties' presence.
• Japitana vs. Parado, A.C. No. 10859, January 26, 2016, 782 SCRA 34 — Cited for suspension from law practice for two years and permanent bar from notarial commission for repeatedly performing notarial acts without the requisite commission.
• Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, 751 Phil. 10 (2015) — Cited for suspension from law practice for two years and permanent bar from notarial commission for repeated notarial acts without commission.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — 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 or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied because complainant and Grace did not personally appear before respondent.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied because respondent violated the 2004 Notarial Rules.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied because respondent's notarization without authority and misrepresentation as a commissioned notary constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct.
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Applied as part of the ethical breach.
• 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 because respondent committed falsehood by misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.