The Supreme Court held that a notary public’s failure to exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the identity of an individual appearing before them constitutes negligence and a breach of their notarial duty. Atty. Jose A. Almo was found liable for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) with a forged signature, leading to the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment for two years. This ruling emphasizes the high standard of care required of notaries public in verifying identities, safeguarding against fraud, and maintaining public trust in notarized documents.
“Notarized Impersonation: How a Faulty Verification Led to an Attorney’s Suspension”
The case revolves around Charles B. Baylon’s complaint against Atty. Jose A. Almo for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that bore Baylon’s forged signature. Baylon alleged that his wife and others conspired to prepare the SPA, which authorized his wife to mortgage his property. He presented evidence proving he was out of the country when the SPA was executed and notarized, and a report from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) confirmed that the signature on the SPA was not his. Atty. Almo admitted notarizing the document but claimed he relied on the presentation of a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) by a person introduced to him as Charles Baylon. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and found Atty. Almo negligent in performing his notarial duties, recommending sanctions that the IBP Board of Governors modified to include suspension from law practice.
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Almo was negligent in notarizing the SPA, and if so, what the appropriate sanctions should be. The Court underscored the significant role notaries public play in ensuring the authenticity and reliability of documents. Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that notarization is not a mere formality but an act imbued with public interest. Documents are given full faith and credit upon their face when notarized and courts and the public must be able to rely on the accuracy of acknowledgments executed by notaries.
The Court referenced Santiago v. Rafanan, emphasizing the grave responsibility of notaries. It stated,
. . . Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
Given the sensitive nature of the SPA, which authorized Baylon’s wife to mortgage his property, the Court reasoned that Atty. Almo should have exercised a higher degree of diligence in verifying the identity of the person claiming to be Baylon. This approach contrasts with simply accepting a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as sufficient proof of identity. Community Tax Certificates are not always reliable because they can be easily obtained.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Sec. 12 provides guidance on the accepted forms of identification that Notaries Public must require from their clients. Competent evidence of identity is described as:
| (a) |
at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; 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.
|
Moreover, since Atty. Almo admitted to having notarized documents for Baylon in the past, the Court suggested he should have compared the signatures on those prior documents with the signature on the questioned SPA.
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court deemed Atty. Almo’s actions a breach of his duty as a notary public. Consequently, the Court revoked his notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for two years, underscoring the need for notaries to uphold the integrity of their office through careful and diligent practice.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether Atty. Jose A. Almo was negligent in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) bearing a forged signature, and the appropriate sanctions for such negligence. |
| What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)? | A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is a legal document authorizing a person (agent or attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of another person (principal) in specific matters, such as mortgaging property. |
| What evidence did the complainant, Charles Baylon, present? | Baylon presented certifications showing he was out of the country when the SPA was executed and notarized, along with an NBI report confirming his signature was forged on the SPA. |
| What was Atty. Almo’s defense? | Atty. Almo claimed he notarized the SPA in good faith, relying on a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) presented by someone who claimed to be Charles Baylon. |
| Why did the court find Atty. Almo negligent? | The court found Atty. Almo negligent for failing to exercise utmost diligence in verifying the identity of the person claiming to be Charles Baylon, particularly given the nature of the SPA. |
| What is the significance of notarization? | Notarization transforms a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitled to full faith and credit. |
| What sanctions were imposed on Atty. Almo? | The Supreme Court revoked Atty. Almo’s notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. |
| What should notaries public do to verify identity? | Notaries public should require at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or rely on the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. |
This case highlights the importance of due diligence in notarial practice and the serious consequences that can arise from a failure to properly verify the identity of individuals seeking notarial services. Notaries public are entrusted with a significant responsibility, and their actions directly impact the integrity and reliability of legal documents.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: Charles B. Baylon vs. Atty. Jose A. Almo, A.C. No. 6962, June 25, 2008
Leave a Reply