TL;DR
The Supreme Court penalized Atty. Amado O. Ibañez for notarizing an “Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale” without the personal appearance of all parties involved. This decision underscores the crucial role of notaries public in verifying the identities and ensuring the voluntary consent of signatories to legal documents. By failing to adhere to this fundamental requirement, Atty. Ibañez violated his oath as a lawyer and undermined the integrity of the notarial process. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year and revoked his notarial commission.
Breach of Trust: When a Lawyer’s Oversight Leads to Ethical Fallout
This case revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Amado O. Ibañez for notarizing a document without the presence of the affiants. The complainants, representing the deceased Loreto Angeles, alleged that Atty. Ibañez notarized the “Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale” without requiring their personal appearance and without possessing a valid notarial commission at the time. This raises a critical question: What are the ethical obligations of a lawyer acting as a notary public, and what are the consequences of failing to meet these standards?
The facts presented to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) revealed a complex land dispute. The complainants claimed they never appeared before Atty. Ibañez to execute the document, further alleging he lacked the authority to notarize it. They supported their claims with certifications from the Regional Trial Court of Manila and the National Archives, indicating that Atty. Ibañez was not commissioned as a notary public during the relevant period. In response, Atty. Ibañez admitted to notarizing the document but claimed he did so as a Notary Public of the Province of Cavite, attributing the designation of “Manila” as the place of execution to a clerical error.
The IBP’s investigation revealed a critical discrepancy. Despite Atty. Ibañez’s claim, certifications showed he did not have a notarial commission for either Manila or Cavite at the time he notarized the document. This directly contradicted his assertion of acting as a commissioned notary public. The IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline emphasized that the validity of the transaction itself was not the issue; rather, the focus was on Atty. Ibañez’s misconduct in notarizing the document without proper authority and without ensuring the presence of the parties involved.
The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the fundamental principle that notarization requires the personal appearance of the affiants. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, the Notarial Law, mandates that the notary public certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to them and that they are the same person who executed it, acknowledging that it is their free act and deed. Similarly, Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 explicitly prohibits performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or properly identified.
Section 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
The Court reiterated the importance of notarization in converting a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. This underscores the public’s reliance on the integrity of the notarial process. The Court rejected Atty. Ibañez’s defense that he relied on the assurance of his secretary, Rosalina Angeles, regarding the authenticity of the signatures. This underscores that lawyers cannot delegate their responsibility to ensure compliance with notarial requirements.
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ibañez guilty of violating his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The consequences were severe: suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission, and a prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. This decision serves as a stern warning to lawyers who take their notarial duties lightly. It highlights the importance of upholding the integrity of the notarial process by ensuring the personal appearance and proper identification of all affiants.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether Atty. Ibañez committed misconduct by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the affiants and without a valid notarial commission. |
| What is the importance of notarization? | Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity, and ensuring public trust in the integrity of legal documents. |
| What does the Notarial Law require? | The Notarial Law requires the notary public to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to them and that they executed it freely and voluntarily. |
| Can a notary public rely on someone else’s assurance about signatures? | No, a notary public cannot rely on the assurance of a third party regarding the authenticity of signatures; they must personally verify the identity and voluntary consent of the affiants. |
| What were the penalties imposed on Atty. Ibañez? | Atty. Ibañez was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. |
| Why is the personal appearance of affiants so important? | Personal appearance allows the notary to verify the genuineness of signatures and ensure that the document is the parties’ free act and deed, preventing fraud and coercion. |
| What should a lawyer do if they are unsure about notarial procedures? | A lawyer should consult the Notarial Law, the Rules on Notarial Practice, and seek guidance from more experienced colleagues or legal experts to ensure compliance with all requirements. |
This case serves as a potent reminder of the ethical responsibilities that accompany the privilege of practicing law. Lawyers must uphold the integrity of legal processes, including notarization, by strictly adhering to the requirements of the law. Failure to do so can result in severe consequences, impacting not only their professional standing but also the public’s trust in the legal system.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: AVELINO O. ANGELES vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, G.R. No. 48461, January 15, 2009
Leave a Reply