In Caronongan v. Ladera, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical implications of a lawyer notarizing a document involving their own relatives. The Court held that while such an act constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 3(c), Rule IV, the circumstances of the case—including the lack of bad faith, the absence of prejudice to any party, and the lawyer’s inexperience—warranted a lenient penalty of admonishment rather than suspension. This decision underscores the importance of ethical conduct in notarial practice and serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of familial involvement in legal transactions.

When Family Ties Blur the Lines: Examining Notarial Impartiality

The case revolves around Atty. Jairo M. Ladera, who notarized a Contract of Lease between Peoples Bank of Caraga, Inc. and his mother, Teresita M. Ladera. Ian B. Caronongan, a bank officer, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ladera, alleging violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Caronongan argued that Ladera violated Section 3(c), Rule IV, which disqualifies a notary public from notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity or consanguinity. He also contended that the document was incomplete because it lacked the signature of the Bank’s representative, Wilma A. Tepan. The central legal question is whether Atty. Ladera’s actions warranted disciplinary action, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be.

The complainant, Ian Caronongan, emphasized that he brought the case not on behalf of the bank, but in his personal capacity. As a paralegal for the bank, he reviewed legal transactions, and believed that Atty. Ladera had committed a blatant violation of his duties as a notary public. He was aware that the Rules on Notarial Practice strictly prohibit a notary public from notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth degree of affinity and consanguinity. According to the complainant, the notary public’s actions also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a deed despite the non-appearance of one of its signatories.

In his defense, Atty. Ladera argued that the complainant lacked authority to file the case on behalf of the bank. He further contended that the bank suffered no injury from the lease contract, as the parties never accepted its terms. Atty. Ladera admitted to notarizing the contract, explaining that as a new lawyer, he was eager to assist others and, due to unfamiliarity with the rules, unintentionally violated the prohibition. He stated that the document was not incomplete because only his mother signed it, and he never claimed that Wilma Tepan appeared before him. These circumstances played a crucial role in the Supreme Court’s assessment of the case.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended that Atty. Ladera be reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for three months. The IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) adopted this recommendation with a modification, imposing a penalty of reprimand and suspension from being appointed as Notary Public for three months. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the recommended penalty, ultimately opting for a more lenient approach. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that notarization transforms a private document into a public one, making it admissible as evidence without requiring further proof of authenticity. A notary public must therefore exercise due care in performing their duties.

The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the personal appearance requirement, noting that it ensures the notarized document reflects the free act of the parties involved. This principle is further reinforced by Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Rules, which explicitly disqualifies a notary public from notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth civil degree. The court acknowledged that Atty. Ladera violated this rule by notarizing the lease contract signed by his mother. Nevertheless, the Court also noted that apart from Atty. Ladera’s mother, no other party signed the contract, and the acknowledgment itself only mentioned her appearance. It also emphasized that there was no agreement surrounding the lease agreement.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the bank and Teresita did not pursue the agreement surrounding the lease agreement. This showed that no injury was caused by the respondent’s actions. The respondent admitted his mistake, stating that he was a new lawyer at the time he notarized the subject instrument. The Court noted that there was no evidence of bad faith. Considering these factors, the Court found it appropriate to admonish Atty. Ladera, cautioning him that any similar future conduct would be dealt with more severely. This decision reflects a balanced approach, recognizing both the importance of ethical conduct in notarial practice and the mitigating circumstances of the case.

This decision underscores the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly those acting as notaries public. While the Court acknowledged Atty. Ladera’s violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, it also considered the absence of malice and the lack of harm caused by his actions. This approach contrasts with cases where notaries public have been sanctioned more harshly for similar violations, often due to aggravating circumstances such as intentional misconduct or demonstrable prejudice to the parties involved. Moving forward, this case serves as a crucial reference point for lawyers navigating the complexities of notarial duties, especially when dealing with family members or close associates.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Ladera should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document involving his mother, violating the Rules on Notarial Practice.
What rule did Atty. Ladera violate?	Atty. Ladera violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which disqualifies a notary public from notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth civil degree.
What was the initial recommendation by the IBP?	The IBP initially recommended that Atty. Ladera be reprimanded and suspended from being appointed as a Notary Public for three months.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court admonished Atty. Ladera, issuing a warning that a repetition of a similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Why did the Supreme Court issue a lenient penalty?	The Court considered mitigating circumstances such as the absence of bad faith, the lack of prejudice to any party, and Atty. Ladera’s inexperience as a new lawyer.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization transforms a private document into a public one, making it admissible as evidence without requiring further proof of authenticity.
What is the personal appearance requirement in notarization?	The personal appearance requirement ensures that the notarized document reflects the free act of the parties involved.
Can a paralegal file an administrative case against a notary public?	Yes, as established in this case, a paralegal can file an administrative case if they observe a blatant violation of a notary public’s duties.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Caronongan v. Ladera serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers, particularly those acting as notaries public. This case highlights the importance of adhering to the Rules on Notarial Practice and avoiding conflicts of interest, while also demonstrating the Court’s willingness to consider mitigating circumstances when imposing disciplinary sanctions. Lawyers must remain vigilant in upholding the integrity of the notarial process and ensuring that their actions do not undermine public trust in the legal profession.

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: IAN B. CARONONGAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JAIRO M. LADERA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 10252, December 11, 2019