Villarin vs. Sabate

A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein; the acts of affiants cannot be delegated, and a notary public who is himself a signatory to the instrument cannot notarize the same.

Complainants Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr., and Bartolome Evarolo, Sr., through counsel, had filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz, et al. before the Securities and Exchange Commission under SEC Case No. DV091 at the Region XI Davao Extension Office. Respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. served as counsel for the respondents in that SEC case and was also an officer of the religious sect and corporation represented by those respondents. The administrative complaint arose from the notarization of a pleading in that SEC case, implicating the distinct duties of a lawyer commissioned as notary public under the Notarial Law.

Complainants Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr., and Bartolome Evarolo, Sr. filed an Affidavit-Complaint praying that administrative sanctions be imposed on respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. for not having observed honesty and utmost care in the performance of his duties as notary public. The complaint arose from events in SEC Case No. DV091, Region XI Davao Extension Office, Davao City, where complainants, through their counsel Atty. Eduardo D. Estores, had filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz, et al.

The respondents in the SEC case filed a "Motion to Dismiss With Answer To Villarin's Et. Al., Complaint To The Securities and Exchange Commission," prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Sabate. The verification of that pleading was subscribed and sworn to before respondent as notary public on February 6, 1989, in Cagayan de Oro City. The signatures on the verification included those of Lilian C. Diaz (who signed for her husband Paterno Diaz), Atty. Restituto B. Sabate (who signed for Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado), and others, each preceded by the word "By."

Complainants alleged that the signature of Paterno Diaz was not his but that of Lilian Diaz; that with regard to the signatures of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, it was respondent himself who signed for them; and that respondent made it appear that said persons participated in the act when in fact they did not. Complainants averred that respondent's act undermined public confidence and warranted administrative sanctions.

In his Answer, respondent alleged that Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan, and Alejandro Bofetiado swore to the correctness of the allegations through their authorized representatives — Lilian C. Diaz, wife of Paterno Diaz, and respondent himself — as manifested by the word "By" preceding every signature. He claimed he signed for and in the interest of his clients backed by their authorization, and that Lilian Diaz was authorized to sign for her husband as evidenced by a written authority. He further argued that the word "By" before his signature suggested he did not make it appear that those persons signed in his presence, and that the distance of his clients' residence and the reglementary period for filing the pleading justified his actions. He dismissed the complaint as malicious and prayed for damages.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension from respondent's commission as notary public, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted. On review, the Supreme Court found that respondent notarized the Motion to Dismiss With Answer which he signed for and on behalf of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, while Lilian Diaz signed for her husband Paterno Diaz, because he was their counsel and an officer of the religious sect and corporation they represented. While he appeared to have acted in good faith, the Court found that his conduct could not be condoned: he failed to state in the preliminary statements of the pleading that the three respondents were represented by designated attorneys-in-fact, and having signed the verification himself, he could not swear that he appeared before himself as notary public.

• Falsification of Participation: Complainants alleged that respondent made it appear that Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan, and Alejandro Bofetiado participated in the execution of the pleading when in fact they did not, as Lilian Diaz signed for Paterno Diaz and respondent signed for Pagunsan and Bofetiado.
• Undermining Public Confidence: Complainants averred that respondent's act undermined the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents, for which reason administrative sanctions should be imposed.

• Authorization by Clients: Respondent alleged that he signed for Pagunsan and Bofetiado backed by their authorization, and that Lilian Diaz was authorized to sign for her husband Paterno Diaz as evidenced by a written authority.
• Good Faith Through "By" Notation: Respondent argued that the word "By" preceding his signature suggested he did not make it appear that those persons signed in his presence, and that his clients authorized him to sign given the distance of their residence and the reglementary period for filing the pleading.
• Malicious Complaint: Respondent alleged that the complaint was malicious and anchored on evil motives to vindicate complainants' court losses, and prayed for dismissal with an award for damages to vindicate his honor and mental anguish.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: Whether a notary public may notarize a verification signed by representatives on behalf of affiants who did not personally appear before the notary.
• Notary as Signatory: Whether a notary public may notarize a document of which he is himself a signatory.
• Good Faith as Defense: Whether good faith and urgency justify deviations from the requirements of the Notarial Law.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: No. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated; the persons who signed the document must be the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the notary public.
• Notary as Signatory: No. A notary public who is a signatory to the instrument cannot notarize the same, as it would place him in an inconsistent position and defeat the purpose of acknowledgment.
• Good Faith as Defense: No. Alleged urgent circumstances and good faith do not excuse non-compliance with the Notarial Law; a member of the bar is required to obey the laws of the land at all times.

• Personal Appearance of Affiants: The Court applied Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, which requires that the acknowledgment be made before a notary public who shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. The acts of affiants — attesting to facts within their personal knowledge — cannot be delegated to anyone. If representatives execute the document, their names should appear as the ones who executed it, and only then may they personally appear before the notary for notarization. Respondent signed the verification for Pagunsan and Bofetiado and allowed Lilian Diaz to sign for Paterno Diaz, yet none of these affiants personally appeared before him. He also failed to state in the preliminary statements of the pleading that the three respondents were represented by designated attorneys-in-fact.

• Notary as Signatory: The function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument, because he would be interested in sustaining its validity as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. This would place him in an inconsistent position and thwart the very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud. Having signed the verification himself, respondent could not swear that he appeared before himself as notary public. The Court relied on Valles vs. Quijano and Cruz vs. Villasor for this principle.

• Good Faith as Defense: While it appeared respondent acted in good faith, the Court held that the same cannot be condoned. As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining to his office, duties dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. That respondent was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse; as an individual and as a member of the legal profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land at all times. The Court relied on Flores vs. Chua and Arrieta vs. Llosa for these propositions.

• Personal Appearance Rule in Notarization — A member of the bar commissioned as notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated to anyone, for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore to personally, not through any representative. If representatives execute the document, their names should appear as the ones who executed it, and only then may they personally appear before the notary for notarization. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that respondent violated it when he signed the verification for two affiants who did not personally appear before him.

• Prohibition on Notarizing One's Own Signature — A notary public must not notarize a document of which he is himself a signatory, because it would place him in an inconsistent position and defeat the purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud. The notary would be interested in sustaining the validity of the instrument as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. The Court applied this by holding that respondent, having signed the verification, could not swear that he appeared before himself as notary public.

• Sacrosanct Nature of Notarial Duties — A lawyer commissioned as notary public is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining to his office, duties dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Urgency and good faith do not excuse non-compliance, as a member of the legal profession is required to obey the laws of the land at all times.

• "A member of the bar who performs an act as 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 said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore to the same personally and not through any representative." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi: the personal appearance requirement in notarization and the non-delegability of an affiant's act.

• "The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act." — This passage defines the doctrinal basis for prohibiting a notary from notarizing a document he himself signed, grounding it in the fraud-prevention purpose of acknowledgment.

• "Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion." — This passage establishes the standard of accountability for notaries public and the consequence of failing to observe notarial duties.

• Valles vs. Quijano, A.M. No. P-1338, November 18, 1999 — Cited for the principle that the function of a notary public is to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements, which would be defeated if the notary were a signatory to the instrument; and for the proposition that the purpose of acknowledgment is to minimize fraud. The Court also cited Balinon vs. De Leon and Cruz vs. Villasor through this case.
• Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 — Cited for the text of Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 governing acknowledgments, and for the principle that a member of the legal profession is required to obey the laws of the land at all times.
• Flores vs. Chua, G.R. No. 109767, April 30, 1999 — Cited for the proposition that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct, and that failing therein, the notary must accept the commensurate consequences of professional indiscretion.

• Section 1, Public Act No. 2103 — Provides that the acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or duly authorized officer, who shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The Court applied this provision to hold that respondent violated the personal appearance requirement by notarizing a verification signed by representatives for absent affiants, and by notarizing a document of which he was himself a signatory.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred.