The Supreme Court (SC) has cautioned lawyers who are commissioned as notary public to exercise faithfully their sworn duties “such as the ascertainment of the identity of any person who comes before them to avail of their services.”
In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC said:
“Prefatorily, it is a time-honored principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. It is one heavily impressed with public interest, for notarization converts a private document to a public one, making it admissible without further proof of its authenticity.
“Plain as a pikestaff, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in performing his or her duties in order to preserve the public's confidence in the integrity of the notarial system.”
Two lawyers did not exercise the utmost care and diligence mandated by the SC in the notarization of documents. The SC imposed stiff penalties.
The lawyers sanctioned by the SC were named in the decision as Miguel G. Padernal and Delfin R. Agcaoili Jr. who were found to have violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Padernal was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission was suspended for two years.
In the case of Agcaoili, he was suspended as a lawyer for five years and was permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
The SC said its decision is immediately executory.
The complaint against the two lawyers was filed by Fortunato C. Dionisio Jr. and Franklin C. Dionisio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In their complaint, the Dionisio siblings said that they founded a partnership named FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company together with their sister Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon and their departed mother. A parcel of land was then registered under the name of the said partnership, they said.
Upon expiry of its term, the siblings said they entrusted the liquidation and winding up of the partnership affairs to Franklin’s daughter-in-law, lawyer Rowena Dionisio.
At the interstice, Padernal notarized on Feb. 12, 2010 a Real Estate Mortgage executed by FCD and Union Bank of the Philippines wherein the said parcel of land was proffered as security for the P20 million loan taken out by Sunyang Mining Corporation.
At the same time, Agcaoili notarized a Partner’s Certificate also on Feb. 12, 2010 authorizing the said mortgage.
But the complainants said they were shocked when they later discovered that the parcel of land was foreclosed and sold at public auction with Union Bank emerging as the winning bidder.
They said that contrary to what appeared in both the Real Estate Mortgage and the Partner’s Certificate, they, together with Felicitas, did not appear personally before the two lawyers on Feb. 12, 2010.
In the case of Felicitas, she said she was out of the country based on her travel records.
They pointed out that the presentation of community tax certificates, as indicated in the subject documents, should not have been relied upon in determining whether they had indeed personally appeared before the two lawyers together with their sister.
Padernal admitted having notarized the subject documents and asserted that he was introduced to complainants and their sister by officers of Union Bank’s Business Line Department.
He said the complainants showed their respective identification cards before signing the Real Estate Mortgage in his presence.
Agcaoili, on the other hand, did not file his verified answer and position paper, and did not attend the mandatory conference on the matter scheduled by the IBP.
In penalizing the Padernal and Agcaoili, the SC said:
“In epitome, owing to their gross negligence in fulfilling their sworn duty to appropriately identify the signatories to a document before performing a notarial act, respondents did not only cause damage to the parties directly affected by the terms of the documents they notarized, but they also undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. Failing in their duties, respondents must now bear the commensurate consequences.”