In Lanuzo v. Bongon, the Supreme Court addressed the responsibilities of a notary public. The Court ruled that a notary public must positively identify individuals appearing before them, especially when notarizing legal documents. Failing to do so, particularly when attesting to the signature of a deceased person, constitutes a breach of notarial duty. The consequence for such negligence includes the revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from future commissions, and suspension from the practice of law, emphasizing the crucial role notaries play in maintaining public trust in legal documents. This decision underscores the need for scrupulous adherence to notarial standards to safeguard the integrity of legal processes.

The Case of the Deceased Signatory: A Notary’s Lapse in Diligence

Flocerfida Lanuzo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jesus B. Bongon, accusing him of falsifying public documents and violating notarial rules. The dispute arose from a Deed of Sale concerning land that Lanuzo’s husband had purchased. Lanuzo discovered a subsequent deed selling the same land to Librada G. Santos, notarized by Atty. Bongon. Critically, this deed was purportedly signed by both Fernando and Primitiva Nangyo, even though Primitiva had died six years prior. This discrepancy prompted Lanuzo to file the complaint, alleging that Atty. Bongon had failed in his duty to properly verify the identities of the signatories, leading to the notarization of a fraudulent document. The central legal question revolves around the extent of a notary public’s responsibility to ascertain the identities and the truthfulness of the parties appearing before them.

The IBP, through Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco, investigated the matter and found Atty. Bongon to have indeed violated notarial law. Specifically, the Commissioner noted that Atty. Bongon failed to ensure the personal appearance of all parties, preventing him from discovering Primitiva Nangyo’s death. Despite this, the Commissioner did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Atty. Bongon had conspired in the falsification of the deed. As a result, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s report, recommending a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings and recommendations, emphasizing the importance of due diligence in notarial acts. The Court reiterated that a notary public should not notarize a document unless they can verify the genuineness of the signatures and ensure that the document reflects the parties’ free act. Notarization is not a mere formality; it imbues a document with public trust and legal weight. Failure to properly verify the identities of the parties undermines this trust. A notary’s role is to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of legal documents, which demands the highest standard of care.

That a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein bears reiterating, the purpose being to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties’ free act.

In Atty. Bongon’s case, his failure to verify the identities of the signatories resulted in the notarization of a document with the signature of a deceased person. This act constituted unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, violating the ethical standards expected of lawyers and notaries public. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers commissioned as notaries public are bound to discharge their duties with fidelity, given the public policy implications and the public interest involved.

The Court noted that a notarized document is entitled to full credit on its face, underscoring the need for notaries public to adhere to basic requirements meticulously. In Gonzales v. Ramos, the Court provided relevant context to underscore the nature of a notary’s commission:

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a meaningless routinary act. A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in notarized documents will be undermined.

While the Court agreed with the IBP that there was insufficient evidence to hold Atty. Bongon liable for conspiracy in falsifying the deed of sale, his failure to diligently perform his notarial duties warranted disciplinary action. The Supreme Court thus ordered the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court warned that any repetition of the offense or similar violations would result in more severe penalties. By imposing these sanctions, the Supreme Court reinforced the significance of adhering to notarial standards and the consequences of neglecting those duties.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The core issue was whether Atty. Bongon violated his duties as a notary public by notarizing a document purportedly signed by a person who was already deceased. This raised questions about the standard of care required of notaries in verifying the identities of signatories.
What duties does a notary public have?	A notary public must verify the identity of the individuals signing a document and ensure they are doing so willingly and with understanding of its contents. This verification is a crucial aspect of their role in ensuring the integrity of legal documents.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Atty. Bongon be suspended from the practice of law for one year and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This decision was based on his failure to properly verify the identity of a signatory.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation, revoking Atty. Bongon’s notarial commission, disqualifying him from future commissions for two years, and suspending him from practicing law for one year. The Court emphasized the need for utmost diligence in performing notarial functions.
Why is notarization important?	Notarization lends credibility and authenticity to documents, making them more reliable in legal proceedings. It helps prevent fraud by ensuring that signatories are who they claim to be and that they understand the documents they are signing.
What happens if a notary fails to perform their duties?	If a notary fails to properly perform their duties, they may face disciplinary actions such as suspension from practicing law, revocation of their notarial commission, and disqualification from future commissions. They may also face civil or criminal liability in certain cases.
What evidence was presented against Atty. Bongon?	The primary evidence was a Deed of Sale notarized by Atty. Bongon, which included the signature of Primitiva Nangyo, who had passed away six years before the document was notarized. Her death certificate was presented to verify this claim.
Was Atty. Bongon found guilty of falsification?	No, Atty. Bongon was not found guilty of conspiring in the falsification of the deed. The IBP and the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence to support this charge. However, he was found liable for failing to properly perform his duties as a notary public.

The Lanuzo v. Bongon case serves as a reminder to all notaries public about the importance of upholding their duties with the highest standards of care and diligence. The consequences of neglecting these responsibilities can be severe, impacting not only the notary’s career but also the integrity of the legal system. The ruling reinforces the necessity for thorough verification processes and a commitment to ethical conduct in all notarial acts, protecting the public trust in legal documentation.

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: Lanuzo v. Bongon, A.C. No. 6737, September 23, 2008