The Supreme Court (SC) has cautioned the country lawyers, particularly those who act as notaries public, that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.”
It pointed out that private documents once notarized are “admissible in evidence without further proof of their authenticity and due execution.”
“Full faith and credit are accorded to a notarized document. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument,” it stressed.
Thus, the SC pointed out: “Hence, commissioned notaries are obligated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties. They cannot trivialize the Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules). Indeed, their failure to observe the requirements and/or comply with the duties prescribed under the Notarial Rules constitutes grounds for the revocation of their notarial commission. Too, their violation warrants appropriate administrative sanction/s.”
With its declarations, the SC ordered the revocation of the notarial commission, if still existing, of Atty. Nicodemus A. Tago who was disqualified as a notary public for two years and suspended from the practice of law for one month.
In 2013, Atty. Tago notarized two contracts – a memorandum of agreement and a contract of service – presented by the mayor of a town in Bohol.
He did not record the two contracts in his notarial book and did not secure copies of the two documents he notarized. He did not also require the personal appearance of the persons involved in the execution of the two contracts.
He reasoned that he personally knew the mayor and those involved in the contracts.
A complaint was filed against Tago before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP’s original recommendation for Tago’s penalty was two years suspension as notary public and six months suspension from the practice of law.
However, the IBO modified its recommended penalty in a resolution on July 1, 2022 and deleted the recommendation on the suspension as a lawyer.
In resolving the issue, the SC – in a resolution made public on March 8, 2024 – said that the Notarial Rules “prohibits a notary public from notarizing if the person involved as signatory to the document is: (l) not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”
“A notary public should not notarize a document unless the document's signatory/signatories is/are personally present before the notary public. The signatories attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated in the document,” it said.
In the case of Tago, the SC said: “It is not enough that Atty. Tago personally knows the signatories to the instrument, or that he identified the signatories through their competent evidence of identity. The Notarial Rules requires him to enjoin the signatories to personally appear before him so that he can verify the genuineness of their signatures and the contracts' due execution.”
“Atty. Tago failed on these duties. He notarized the contracts even if the signatories did not personally appear before him,” and he “did not inscribe his notarial act in his notarial register,” it said.
The SC also said:
“Atty. Tago not only infringed the Notarial Rules, he also breached the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Specifically, he failed to comply with his duty under Canons 133 and 1034 of the CPR to uphold and obey the laws of the land, i. e., the Notarial Rules, and to promote respect for law and legal processes.
“Considering, however, that Atty. Tago's violation did not cause any harm to complainants' substantive rights, and without showing that he acted with malice, the Court finds it commensurate to suspend him from the practice of law for one month.
“We reiterate that notarial duties cannot be taken lightly. They demand fidelity to an oath. When notaries public solicit the Court's approval of their notarial commission, they do not perfunctorily apply for its title, privilege, power, and authority. They pledge to carry an onus of public responsibility. If by missteps they diminish the sanctity of their oath, the Couti will not tritely falter in demanding their accountability.”