"In the case A.C. No. 12084, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 7, 2018, titled "Hernanie P. Dandoy vs. Atty. Roland G. Edayan", the Court addressed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The case originated from a complaint filed by Hernanie P. Dandoy against Atty. Roland G. Edayan, a notary public, alleging misconduct in the notarization of documents.
Background
Dandoy filed a verified letter-complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on December 17, 2010, asserting that on October 17, 2006, Atty. Edayan notarized two documents: (1) a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Dandoy’s father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, in favor of Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo, and (2) a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate involving the estate of Dandoy’s late grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, where Jacinto was a party. These documents enabled Garzo to mortgage two parcels of land in San Juan, Siquijor, as collateral for a P400,000 loan, which was later foreclosed, causing prejudice to Dandoy and his siblings.
Dandoy argued that his father, Jacinto, could not have appeared before Atty. Edayan to execute these documents on October 17, 2006, because Jacinto had passed away on July 13, 1999—over seven years earlier. He supported his claim with Jacinto’s death certificate and other evidence, alleging that Atty. Edayan violated Canons 1, 3, and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the documents without ensuring the signatory’s personal appearance and identity.
Atty. Edayan’s Defense
In his sworn statement dated May 22, 2011, Atty. Edayan admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed he verified the identities of the signatories using their residence certificates (community tax certificates or "cedulas"). He argued that he acted in good faith, relying on these documents as proof of identity.
Findings
The Supreme Court, affirming the IBP’s findings, ruled that Atty. Edayan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 2(b), Rule IV, which mandates that a notary public must not perform a notarial act unless the signatory personally appears before them and is identified through competent evidence of identity—defined as a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature. The Court emphasized that residence certificates do not meet this standard, as they lack photographs and signatures, making them insufficient for verifying identity.
The Court found that Jacinto’s death in 1999 made it impossible for him to have appeared before Atty. Edayan in 2006. Had Edayan adhered to the notarial rules and required proper identification, he would have detected the fraud. His reliance on residence certificates was deemed negligent and a breach of his duty to exercise due diligence as a notary public. The notarization falsely legitimized the SPA and Deed, facilitating the unauthorized mortgage and foreclosure of the properties, to the detriment of Dandoy and his siblings.
While the IBP found insufficient evidence to prove willful conspiracy with Garzo under the CPR, the Court held Edayan accountable for his notarial misconduct. His actions undermined the integrity of notarized documents, which are presumed authentic and entitled to full faith and credit upon their face.
Penalty
The Supreme Court found Atty. Edayan guilty of violating the **2004 Rules on Notarial Practice**. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, The Court also ordered that copies of the resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the IBP, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
Significance
This case underscores the critical responsibility of notaries public to verify the identity and presence of signatories using competent evidence, as mandated by the 2004 Notarial Rules, to prevent fraud and uphold public trust in notarized documents. Atty. Edayan’s failure to comply with these standards resulted in significant legal and financial consequences for the complainant, highlighting the importance of diligence in notarial practice."
Grok Beta AI app
Built by xAI
April 10, 2025
In the case A.C. No. 8761, Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 12, 2014, the Court addressed a complaint against Atty. Fidel Rinen for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complainant, Merlita Talisic, alleged that Atty. Rinen notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 14, 2008, purportedly executed by her and her husband, granting authority to a third party to sell their property. Talisic claimed she never appeared before Atty. Rinen to acknowledge the document, nor did she sign it, asserting that her signature was forged.
The Supreme Court found that Atty. Rinen failed to require the personal presence of Talisic and her husband during the notarization, a fundamental requirement under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule mandates that a notary public must not perform a notarial act unless the signatory is physically present and either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Evidence showed that Talisic was not in the Philippines at the time of notarization, as confirmed by a Bureau of Immigration certification, further supporting her claim of non-appearance.
Atty. Rinen admitted to notarizing the SPA but argued it was done in good faith, relying on the representations of the person who presented the document. However, the Court rejected this defense, emphasizing that notaries public must exercise utmost diligence to ascertain the identity and presence of the signatories to prevent fraud and maintain public trust in notarized documents. His failure to comply with the notarial rules constituted a serious breach of his duties as a notary public and a lawyer.
The Court ruled Atty. Rinen guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1 (upholding the integrity of the legal profession) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful conduct). As a penalty, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The decision underscored the critical role of notaries in upholding the authenticity of public documents and the severe consequences of negligence in this duty.
Grok Beta AI app
Built by xAI
April 10, 2025
In A.C. No. 4545, Ang vs. Atty. Gupana, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 5, 2014, the Court addressed a complaint filed by Carlito Ang against Atty. James Joseph Gupana for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The case stemmed from Atty. Gupana’s notarization of an Affidavit of Loss dated April 29, 1994, purportedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo, despite her death on March 26, 1991—making her personal appearance impossible.
Complainant Ang alleged that Atty. Gupana, acting as the attorney-in-fact for Candelaria’s heirs, sold a property in 1995 using a 1989 Deed of Absolute Sale and the notarized Affidavit of Loss to secure a new certificate of title. Ang argued that Gupana notarized the affidavit despite knowing Candelaria was deceased, violating notarial rules requiring the signatory’s personal presence. In his defense, Gupana claimed he acted in good faith, relying on representations from Candelaria’s heirs, and denied notarizing the document with knowledge of her death. He admitted, however, that he did not personally know Candelaria before, during, or after the notarization.
The Supreme Court found Atty. Gupana administratively liable for breaching Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits notarization unless the signatory is present and identified by the notary. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a process requiring diligence to ensure the document’s authenticity. Gupana’s admission of not knowing Candelaria confirmed her absence during the notarization, rendering his act a violation of his duties as a notary public and a lawyer under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate upholding integrity and avoiding unlawful conduct.
The Court rejected Gupana’s good faith defense, stressing that notaries must independently verify signatories’ identities, not rely on others’ assurances. As a penalty, Atty. Gupana was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for two years, with a warning of harsher sanctions for future violations. The decision highlighted the notary’s role in safeguarding public trust in legal documents.
Grok Beta AI app
Built by xAI
April 10, 2025
The case A.C. No. 7184, Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. vs. Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 17, 2014, involves an administrative complaint against Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe for malpractice as a notary public and violation of notarial rules.
Background and Complaint:
Felipe B. Almazan, Sr., the complainant, filed a complaint on April 27, 2006, alleging that Atty. Suerte-Felipe notarized an "Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. de Nieva" dated December 25, 1999, despite not being commissioned as a notary public for Marikina City, where the notarization occurred. Almazan claimed this act constituted malpractice and gross negligence, as Suerte-Felipe falsely represented himself as a notary public for Marikina in the document.
Facts and Evidence:
Suerte-Felipe admitted to notarizing the document but argued he was commissioned as a notary public for Pasig City and the municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for 1998-1999, as supported by a certification from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. However, this commission did not extend to Marikina City, rendering the notarization outside his territorial jurisdiction. The complainant further pointed out that the document was incompletely dated, yet still notarized, adding to the allegations of misconduct.
Investigation and Findings:
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded that Suerte-Felipe violated the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath by notarizing a document beyond his authorized jurisdiction. The IBP Board of Governors initially recommended a one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of any existing notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. On reconsideration, this was modified to a reprimand with a one-year disqualification.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings that Suerte-Felipe’s notarization in Marikina exceeded his jurisdictional authority, as defined by Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which limits a notary public’s acts to the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court (in this case, RTC Pasig). The Court found him guilty of malpractice as a notary public, violating his lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. His misrepresentation in the acknowledgment—that he was a notary public for Marikina—was deemed a form of falsehood.
Penalties Imposed:
The Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, effective upon receipt of the resolution, with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts. Additionally, Suerte-Felipe was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and any existing notarial commission was revoked. The Court emphasized that notarizing outside one’s jurisdiction constitutes malpractice and falsification, undermining public trust in notarial acts.
Conclusion:
The case underscores the strict territorial limits of a notary public’s authority and the ethical obligations of lawyers to uphold integrity in their professional conduct, particularly in notarial duties. Copies of the resolution were ordered to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the IBP, and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts.
Grok Beta AI app
Built by xAI
April 10, 2025
DISQUALIFICATION RULE
Under Section 3 of Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, a Filipino notary public is disqualified from notarizing a document in the following situations:
1. Personal Involvement: The notary public is a party to the instrument or document being notarized.
2. Financial or Personal Benefit: The notary public will receive, directly or indirectly, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration as a result of the notarization, beyond what is allowed by the rules or law.
3. Familial Relationship: The notary public is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree of the principal (the person executing the document).
These disqualifications ensure impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest in the notarization process.
Generated by
Grok Beta AI app
Built by xAI
April 10, 2025
