The Supreme Court’s decision in Dandoy v. Edayan underscores the critical importance of proper notarial practice, particularly the stringent verification of a signatory’s identity. The Court found Atty. Roland G. Edayan liable for failing to adhere to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized documents based on insufficient identification. This ruling reinforces the principle that notaries public must meticulously verify the identity of individuals appearing before them to ensure the integrity and authenticity of notarized documents. The decision serves as a reminder of the serious consequences for notaries who neglect their duties, which directly impacts the public trust in the legal system.
The Case of the Deceased Declarant: When a Notary’s Oversight Undermines Legal Integrity
This case arose from a complaint filed by Hernanie P. Dandoy against Atty. Roland G. Edayan for allegedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Dandoy alleged that Atty. Edayan notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate involving Dandoy’s deceased father, Jacinto S. Dandoy. Dandoy claimed his father had passed away years before the documents were notarized, making it impossible for him to appear before Atty. Edayan. The central issue was whether Atty. Edayan properly verified the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto Dandoy, and whether his failure to do so constituted a breach of his duties as a notary public and a violation of the CPR.
Atty. Edayan admitted to notarizing the documents, claiming he relied on residence certificates presented by the individuals as proof of identity. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Edayan liable for failing to comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules, which require competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID with a photograph and signature. The IBP recommended the revocation of Atty. Edayan’s notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the importance of the notarial act and the need for notaries public to exercise utmost care in performing their duties.
The Court emphasized that the act of notarization is imbued with public interest, converting a private document into a public one and lending it evidentiary weight. As such, a notary public must diligently observe the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Rules explicitly define “competent evidence of identity” in Section 12, Rule II:
Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.– The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:
The Court noted that Atty. Edayan failed to adhere to these requirements, as he relied on residence certificates, which are not considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules. This failure was particularly egregious given that Jacinto Dandoy had already passed away at the time of notarization. Had Atty. Edayan exercised due diligence and requested proper identification, he would have discovered the impersonation.
Furthermore, the Court addressed Atty. Edayan’s reliance on statements from witnesses to verify the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto. The Court clarified that under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, such witnesses must not be privy to the instrument and must either be personally known to the notary public or present valid documentary identification. In this case, the witnesses did not meet these criteria, further highlighting Atty. Edayan’s failure to comply with the rules.
Building on this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that a lawyer’s responsibilities extend beyond mere compliance with notarial rules. Attorneys are expected to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and refrain from any conduct that might erode public trust. By notarizing documents based on insufficient identification, Atty. Edayan engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The Court also took note of Atty. Edayan’s continued insistence that his actions were compliant with the rules, despite the IBP’s findings to the contrary. The Supreme Court stressed that lawyers have a duty to stay abreast of legal developments, including changes in notarial rules. Atty. Edayan’s failure to do so demonstrated a lack of diligence and a disregard for the importance of proper notarial practice.
Consequently, the Supreme Court found Atty. Edayan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposed the following penalties: suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission (if any), and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This ruling serves as a stern warning to notaries public to diligently fulfill their duties and adhere to the rules of notarial practice.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Edayan properly verified the identity of an individual who appeared before him to notarize legal documents, and if his failure to do so constituted a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. |
| What did the court decide? | The Supreme Court found Atty. Edayan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. |
| What is “competent evidence of identity” under the 2004 Notarial Rules? | According to Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the document. |
| Why was relying on a residence certificate not sufficient in this case? | The court found that a residence certificate is not considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual. |
| What is the duty of a notary public when notarizing a document? | A notary public must ensure that the signatory to the document is personally present at the time of notarization and is either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, ensuring the document’s authenticity. |
| What is the significance of the notarization process? | Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, which requires notaries to perform their duties with utmost care. |
| Can witnesses be used to verify someone’s identity for notarization? | Yes, but the witness must not be privy to the document, must personally know the individual, and must either be personally known to the notary public or present valid documentary identification. |
| What ethical rules apply to lawyers acting as notaries? | Lawyers acting as notaries must uphold the integrity of the legal profession and refrain from any conduct that might erode public trust, as prescribed in the Code of Professional Responsibility. |
| What is the consequence of violating notarial rules? | Violating notarial rules can result in penalties such as suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. |
The Dandoy v. Edayan case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of diligence and adherence to the rules in notarial practice. It reinforces the responsibility of notaries public to ensure the proper verification of identity, safeguarding the integrity of legal documents and the public trust in the legal system. This decision will continue to shape the standards of notarial conduct in the Philippines, emphasizing the need for vigilance and professionalism in every notarization.
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: HERNANIE P. DANDOY, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ROLAND G. EDAYAN, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 12084, June 06, 2018
Leave a Reply