The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for six months for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the person who executed and signed the document.

Suspended was lawyer Arnulfo H. Manigos in the SC’s resolution under Administrative Case No. 7941 which was made public last Sept. 17.

Aside from suspension, the SC also revoked Manigos’s notarial commission and banned him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

In a resolution written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC – reiterating previous rulings – stressed that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act.”

It pointed out that notarization “is invested with substantive public interest as it has the effect of converting a private instrument into a public document,” which, in turn, “is admissible in evidence without need of first proving its authenticity.”

Thus, it stressed that “a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”

To preserve the integrity of notarized documents, the SC said one of the most fundamental requirements in notarization “is the personal appearance by the person or persons who execute and sign the document or instrument before the notary public.”

The SC said the requirement of personal appearance “is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signatures.”

The administrative case against Manigos was filed by Macario V. Mina who also charged two more lawyers. However, the SC dismissed the complaint against the two lawyers for Mina’s failure to substantiate his allegations.

In his complaint, Mina said that Manigos notarized an instrument captioned “Verification/Certification” on May 16, 2006 without requiring one of the authors, a certain Ernesto Velasco, to personally appear before the lawyer.

Mina also said that Velasco could not have appeared because the latter travelled to the United States on May 12, 2006. Mina submitted the document notarized by Manigos and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration that Velasco travelled to the US on May 12, 2006.

In his answer to Mina’s complaint, Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of Velasco. However, he said, he should not be penalized for helping his long-time clients, the spouses Velasco, to timely file their answer.

Also, Manigos said he notarized the document after he was assured by Velasco’s wife that the document was signed by her husband. He also said that his notarization of the document did not cause any damage or injury to Mina.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Board of Governors affirmed the findings of its investigating commissioner but reduced the recommended penalty from one year to three months suspension of Manigos.

The SC, which has the power to discipline all lawyers, affirmed the findings of the IBP but modified the suspension recommended for Manigos.

It said that Manigos’ familiarity with the signature of Velasco and the assurance of Velasco’s wife do not justify the non-compliance of personal appearance mandated by the Notarial Rules.

It also said that “Manigos's zeal to advance the interests of his clients, no matter how true and commendable, is not a valid excuse to violate a clear and mandatory provision of the Notarial Rules.”

Modifying the recommendation of the IBP, the SC ruled:

“Accordingly, the Court finds respondent Atty. Arnulfo H. Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

“Accordingly, the Court suspends him from the practice of law for a period of six months; revokes his current notarial commission, if any; and prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years.

“He is likewise sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.”