In the case of ZENAIDA B. GONZALES vs. ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS, A.C. No. 6713, December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court suspended a lawyer from law practice for 3 months and revoked his notarial commission.
The Court held that the respondent lawyer did not know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and authenticated the three questioned documents. It added that had the respondent lawyer done so, the fraudulent transfer of complainant's property could have been prevented. It warned all Filipino notaries public that they must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act or acts it embodies.
May I quote below the salient parts of the said decision. Thus:
X x x.
On December 19, 2003, complainant amended her complaint. This time, she charged respondent with gross negligence and failure to exercise the care required by law in the performance of his duties as a notary public, resulting in the loss of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, a 141,497 square meters of mango land covered by TCT NT-29578. The complainant claimed that because of the respondent’s negligent acts, title to her property was transferred to Asterio Gonzales, Estrella Gonzales and Rodolfo Gonzales. She reiterated that when the three documents disposing of her property were notarized, she was out of the country. Estrella Gonzales Mendrano, one of the vendees, was also outside the country as shown by a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) on September 14, 1989. She likewise claimed that Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales (the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales, another vendee) executed an affidavit describing the “Deed of Absolute Sale and Subdivision Agreement” as spurious and without her husband's participation. The affidavit further alleged that the complainant’s signatures were forged and the respondent did not ascertain the identity of the person who came before him and posed as vendor despite the fact that a large tract of land was being ceded and transferred to the vendees.
X x x.
Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice provides:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - “Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and present an integrally complete instrument on document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purpose stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.”
Under the given facts, the respondent clearly failed to faithfully comply with the foregoing rules when he notarized the three documents subject of the present complaint. The respondent did not know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and authenticated the three documents. The IBP Report observed that had the respondent done so, “the fraudulent transfer of complainant's property could have been prevented.”
X x x.
The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act or acts it embodies.
X x x. A notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, and to swear before him that he is the person named in the document and is voluntarily and freely executing the act mentioned in the document. The notary public faithfully discharges this duty by at least verifying the identity of the person appearing before him based on the identification papers presented.
X x x.
