TL;DR

The Supreme Court penalized Atty. Mario V. Panem for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The Court found Atty. Panem guilty of notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the seller’s presence and failing to properly identify her, compounded by his submission of a false statement in court pleadings to conceal his notarial misconduct. As a consequence, Atty. Panem faces a one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, a two-year disqualification from reappointment as notary public, and a fine of P100,000.50. This ruling underscores the strict duties of notaries public and the ethical responsibilities of lawyers to truthfulness and proper legal procedure.

Breach of Trust: When a Notary’s Seal Becomes a Mark of Deceit

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Flordelina Ascaño against Atty. Mario V. Panem for misconduct related to the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Ascaño alleged that Atty. Panem notarized the deed transferring her property to Spouses Guillermo without her presence and proper identification. When confronted, Atty. Panem offered to represent Ascaño in recovering the property, but allegedly misrepresented the facts in court pleadings, stating Ascaño was present during notarization, contradicting her account. This led Ascaño to file an administrative complaint against Atty. Panem, citing violations of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Panem should be held administratively liable for these actions. The Court, in its decision, emphasized the stringent requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Section 1 of Rule II, which mandates personal appearance before a notary public and presentation of competent evidence of identity. According to the rules:

SEC. 1. Acknowledgment. – “Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a)	appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or 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 purposes 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.

The Court found that Atty. Panem violated these rules. Ascaño denied appearing before him for notarization, and Atty. Panem failed to produce his notarial register to substantiate his claim, citing a flood as the cause of its loss—an excuse the Court deemed unsubstantiated. Even if Ascaño had appeared, the Deed indicated she presented a community tax certificate, which is explicitly not a competent evidence of identity under Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules:

SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a)	at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport. driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(b)	the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

Furthermore, Atty. Panem failed to submit his notarial reports for 2006-2007, a violation of Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which requires monthly submission of certified copies of entries and duplicate originals to the Clerk of Court. This series of breaches led the Court to find Atty. Panem liable not only for violating the Notarial Rules but also for breaching Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA, concerning a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and the integrity of the legal profession.

While the Court dismissed the charge of representing conflicting interests, it highlighted Atty. Panem’s dishonesty in filing pleadings that contradicted his client’s account to conceal his notarial lapses. This was deemed a violation of Canon III, Sections 2 and 6, and Canon IV, Section 1 of the CPRA, concerning a lawyer’s duty to be truthful, faithful to client interests, and provide competent service. The Court emphasized that lawyers must adhere to the Revised Lawyer’s Oath, promoting truth and justice and avoiding falsehoods.

Considering these violations, the Supreme Court imposed separate penalties for each offense under the CPRA. For violating Notarial Rules in bad faith and making untruthful statements, Atty. Panem received a one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, a two-year disqualification from being a notary public, and a fine of P100,000.50. This decision serves as a strong reminder to lawyers of their solemn duties as notaries public and officers of the court, emphasizing that any deviation from these duties will be met with serious sanctions.

FAQs

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: Ascaño v. Panem, A.C. No. 13287, June 21, 2023