The Supreme Court in Imelda Bides-Ulaso v. Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana ruled that notarizing a document without the affiant’s presence, while a breach of notarial protocol, does not automatically warrant severe disciplinary action. In this case, the Court reprimanded a lawyer for notarizing an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping before the client had signed it, emphasizing that while the act was censurable, mitigating factors such as the absence of bad faith and the lawyer’s health condition justified a lighter penalty. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to notarial standards while also considering the context of the infraction and the lawyer’s overall record.
Signed, Sealed, Undelivered: Can an Attorney’s ‘Premature’ Notarization Be Excused?
The case arose from a dispute between Imelda Bides-Ulaso (Ulaso) and Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana (Lacsamana), where Ulaso sought Lacsamana’s disbarment for notarizing an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping before her client, Irene Bides, had signed the document. The controversy stemmed from a civil action filed by Bides, represented by Lacsamana, against Ulaso. Ulaso argued that Lacsamana’s act violated penal law, civil procedure rules, the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Notarial Law. Lacsamana countered that her signature was merely a sample for her secretary and that the document was a “sample-draft” mistakenly attached to the pleading.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension for Lacsamana, finding her guilty of gross negligence and violation of the Notarial Law. However, the Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the notarization of the jurat before the client’s signature constituted censurable conduct. The Court acknowledged the significance of the jurat, the part of the affidavit where the notary certifies that the instrument was sworn before her. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but a process requiring faithful observance of the legal solemnity of the oath.
The Court delved into the specifics of the jurat in question, which stated that Irene Bides subscribed and swore to the document on June 18, 2003, and presented her Community Tax Certificate (CTC). This certification implied that Bides was physically present and had sworn to the affidavit before Lacsamana. Therefore, Lacsamana’s act of signing as notary before Bides’s appearance was deemed a failure to uphold the solemnity of the process. However, the Supreme Court found no deliberate intent to mislead or deceive on the part of Lacsamana.
The Supreme Court considered several mitigating factors in its final decision. First, the Court noted the absence of bad faith on Lacsamana’s part. The presence of the word “for” before the signature suggested that Lacsamana did not intend to misrepresent the signature as that of Irene Bides. Second, this was the first infraction lodged against Lacsamana in her long career as a member of the Bar. Third, Lacsamana was recuperating from a stroke that had left her incapacitated since July 11, 2007. These factors influenced the Court to modify the IBP’s recommendation from suspension to a reprimand, with a warning against future infractions.
The decision in Imelda Bides-Ulaso v. Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana serves as a reminder of the duties and responsibilities of lawyers commissioned as notaries public. These duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, requiring strict adherence to the Notarial Law. As officers of the court, lawyers have a primary duty to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law and legal processes. The case highlights the importance of ensuring the affiant’s physical presence during notarization, thereby affirming the oath’s solemnity and the document’s integrity.
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Lacsamana’s act of notarizing a document before it was signed by the affiant, Irene Bides, warranted disciplinary action. |
| What was the initial recommendation by the IBP? | The IBP initially recommended that Atty. Lacsamana be suspended from the practice of law for six months due to gross negligence and violation of the Notarial Law. |
| What mitigating factors did the Supreme Court consider? | The Supreme Court considered the absence of bad faith, the lack of prior infractions, and Atty. Lacsamana’s health condition in its decision. |
| What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? | The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommendation, issuing a reprimand to Atty. Lacsamana with a warning against future infractions. |
| Why is the jurat considered essential in a notarized document? | The jurat contains the notarial certification, affirming that the instrument was sworn to before the notary, ensuring the oath’s legal solemnity. |
| What is the duty of a lawyer commissioned as a notary public? | A lawyer-notary is mandated to discharge the duties appertaining to the notarial office with fidelity, as dictated by public policy and public interest. |
| Can a disbarment case be withdrawn if the complainant agrees to it? | No, a disbarment case may proceed regardless of the complainant’s interest or withdrawal, as the primary concern is the fitness of the lawyer to continue practicing law. |
| Does the statute of limitations apply to disbarment or suspension proceedings? | No, ordinary statutes of limitation do not apply to disbarment or suspension proceedings against members of the Bar, as these proceedings are sui generis. |
In conclusion, the Bides-Ulaso v. Lacsamana case reiterates the importance of diligence and adherence to notarial standards, yet acknowledges that the presence of mitigating factors can influence the severity of disciplinary measures imposed on erring lawyers. While notarizing documents without the affiant’s presence is a clear violation of notarial protocol, the absence of bad faith, coupled with other extenuating circumstances, can lead to a more lenient penalty, emphasizing a balanced approach in upholding legal ethics.
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: Imelda Bides-Ulaso, vs. Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, A.C. No. 7297, September 29, 2009
Leave a Reply