The Supreme Court held that a notary public violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories and by failing to properly record the notarial act in the notarial register. This decision underscores the critical importance of a notary public’s role in verifying the identities of signatories and ensuring the authenticity of documents. The ruling impacts how notarial services are conducted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements to maintain public trust in notarized documents.
Remote Notarization vs. Personal Presence: When is a Video Call Enough?
This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Azucena C. Tabao against Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba, alleging violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The heart of the complaint stemmed from Atty. Lacaba’s notarization of a counter-affidavit where two affiants, Marlin and Marie Cinco, did not personally appear before him. Instead, their signatures were affixed by their respective mothers, Rosalina Aloha B. Cinco and Felicita P. Cinco. The complainant argued that Atty. Lacaba failed to comply with the requirements of personal appearance and proper recording in his notarial register.
Atty. Lacaba did not deny the complainant’s allegations; however, he contended that he had contacted Marlin and Marie via video call and that they authorized their mothers to sign on their behalf. He argued that the video call served as a substitute for personal presence, citing the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Further, he claimed that the circumstances fell under the “physical inability” provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice. However, he admitted that not all elements required by the said provision were present in this case. He maintained that he acted in good faith, believing that the video call sufficiently addressed the requirement of personal appearance, and informed the Investigating Prosecutor that two of the affiants were physically absent but could be contacted via telephone and video call via internet.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Lacaba guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP emphasized that Atty. Lacaba never denied notarizing the counter-affidavit despite the absence of two affiants. Furthermore, the IBP noted that Rosalina and Felicitas were not appointed representatives of Marlin and Marie in accordance with the Civil Code. It recommended a suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the IBP, emphasizing the importance of personal appearance in notarial acts. The Court cited Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. The Court underscored that the purpose of personal appearance is to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.
The Court also addressed Atty. Lacaba’s failure to indicate the document number, page number, book number, and the corresponding series year of his notarial register, deeming this a clear violation of Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court reiterated that these formalities are mandatory, given the evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. The Court explained that notarization transforms a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. Thus, a notary public must observe the basic requirements in performing notarial duties.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the stringent requirements for notarial acts, reinforcing the principle that personal appearance is crucial for verifying the authenticity and voluntariness of documents. The Court rejected the argument that a video call could substitute for personal appearance, citing the need for notaries to directly assess the affiant’s identity and willingness to execute the document.
The Court explicitly quoted the Rules on Notarial Practice to underscore the mandatory nature of personal appearance and proper documentation:
Rule IV
x x x x
Sec. 2. Prohibitions. – x x x
x x x x
Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the significance of maintaining a detailed and accurate notarial register, as mandated by Rule VI:
Rule VI
x x x x
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – x x x
x x x x
The Court held that Atty. Lacaba’s actions undermined the public’s confidence in notarized documents. The Court further stated that notaries public cannot bend the rules for their benefit and that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and revocation of his notarial commission (if any) were commensurate and in accord with existing jurisprudence.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Lacaba violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a counter-affidavit without the personal appearance of all affiants and by failing to properly record the notarial act. |
| Why is personal appearance important in notarization? | Personal appearance allows the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature, ascertain the document is the party’s free act and deed, and ensure the affiant fully understands the content of the document they are signing. |
| Can a video call substitute for personal appearance in a notarial act? | No, according to this ruling, a video call does not satisfy the requirement of personal appearance. The notary must be physically present with the signatory to properly verify their identity and ensure their willingness to execute the document. |
| What are the consequences of violating notarial rules? | Violating notarial rules can lead to administrative sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. |
| What information must be included in a notarial register? | The notary public must record each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, assigning a corresponding number and stating the page(s) of the register on which the document is recorded. |
| Can someone sign a document on behalf of another person during notarization? | Generally, no. Each affiant must personally appear and sign the document themselves unless specific conditions outlined in the Rules on Notarial Practice for physical inability are met, which require specific procedures and witnesses. |
| What is the role of the IBP in administrative cases against lawyers? | The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigates complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding disciplinary actions. |
| What is the significance of notarization? | Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, giving it full faith and credit on its face. |
This case reaffirms the stringent standards required of notaries public in the Philippines. By requiring personal appearance and accurate record-keeping, the Supreme Court seeks to uphold the integrity of notarized documents and maintain public trust in the notarial process.
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: AZUCENA C. TABAO VS. ATTY. ALEXANDER R. LACABA, G.R. No. 65026, March 13, 2019
Leave a Reply