ASG Law

Tag: Competent Evidence of Identity

  • Negligence in Notarization: Lawyers Must Verify Identity to Avoid Malpractice

    The Supreme Court held that a lawyer violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly verify the identity of individuals signing a document. This ruling underscores the critical duty of notaries public to ensure the identity of signatories through competent evidence, thereby safeguarding the integrity of notarized documents. The Court emphasized that accepting insufficient identification, such as community tax certificates, undermines the public’s trust in the notarization process, potentially leading to severe consequences for those affected by fraudulent documents. By prioritizing due diligence in verifying identities, lawyers uphold their ethical obligations and prevent potential legal and financial harm to the public.

    When a Notary’s Negligence Leads to Ethical Breach: The Navarrete vs. Brillantes Case

    In Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr. v. Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the administrative complaint filed against Atty. Constante V. Brillantes, Jr., for allegedly violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complainants, Miguel G. Navarrete and Miguelito G. Navarrete, Jr., accused Atty. Brillantes of notarizing a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (DREM) under fraudulent circumstances. Specifically, the DREM involved a property co-owned by the complainants and their elder brother, Michael Dinno Navarrete, but it was allegedly executed without their knowledge. The core issue was whether Atty. Brillantes failed to properly ascertain the identities of the individuals who signed the DREM, and whether this failure constituted a breach of his duties as a notary public and a violation of the CPR.

    The complainants argued that Atty. Brillantes falsified the DREM by making it appear that they were of legal age at the time of execution, when in reality, they were minors. They presented evidence, including their birth certificates, to support their claim. Further, they alleged that Atty. Brillantes allowed strangers to sign their names on the DREM, indicating a deliberate act of fraud. In response, Atty. Brillantes claimed that he verified the identities of the persons who appeared before him by examining their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) and IDs, which he photocopied. He also stated that the complainants were accompanied by their father, Miguelito R. Navarette, Sr., and their brother, Dinno, who confirmed their identities. Atty. Brillantes also pointed to an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate where the complainants represented themselves as being of legal age.

    The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Brillantes remiss in his duties as a notary public. The IBP concluded that Atty. Brillantes either notarized the DREM without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures, indicating an intent to commit falsehood and violate applicable laws. The IBP recommended that Atty. Brillantes be suspended from the practice of law for six months and that his notarial commission be revoked. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC) with modification, recommending the imposition of a one-year suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The IBP emphasized that Atty. Brillantes violated the 2004 Notarial Rules by performing a notarial act without requiring the signatories to present competent evidence of identity, as defined under Section 12 of the Rules.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that notarization is a significant act imbued with public interest, transforming a private document into a public one, admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. Notaries public must diligently observe the basic requirements in performing their notarial duties to maintain public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandate that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and is either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity.

    Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules defines “competent evidence of identity” as:

    Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:

    (a)
    at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or
    (b)
    the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

    The Court noted that Atty. Brillantes failed to properly confirm the identity of the individuals claiming to be Miguel and Miguelito, Jr., as required by the 2004 Notarial Rules. Community tax certificates (CTCs) are not considered valid and competent evidence of identity because they do not bear the photograph and signature of the persons appearing before the notary. This requirement is crucial for accurately ascertaining the identity of signatories.

    The records clearly indicated that the complainants were minors at the time of the DREM’s execution, making it impossible for them to have personally appeared before Atty. Brillantes. Had Atty. Brillantes exercised more diligence and requested identification documents issued by an official agency bearing their photograph and signature, he would have discovered the discrepancy. The Court also addressed Atty. Brillantes’ claim that he verified the identities using IDs from private institutions, clarifying that these do not meet the requirements of the 2004 Notarial Rules, which specify that identification documents must be issued by an official agency.

    The Court further explained that statements from Miguelito, Sr. and Dinno regarding the identity of the persons claiming to be the complainants did not comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules. The Rules require that credible witnesses must not be privy to the document, must personally know the individuals subscribing to the document, and must either be personally known to the notary public or present a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document issued by an official agency. Here, Dinno was privy to the DREM, and there was no evidence showing that the other witnesses were personally known to Atty. Brillantes or presented the required documentary identification.

    The Court acknowledged that the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-1077136, which Atty. Brillantes used to prepare the DREM, stated that the complainants were of legal age. Additionally, Miguelito, Sr. and Dinno confirmed the identities of the individuals appearing before Atty. Brillantes as the complainants. Furthermore, the complainants’ signatures in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, where they were also represented as being of legal age, appeared to be the same. Given these circumstances and the fact that this was Atty. Brillantes’ first administrative charge in over 25 years of practice, the Court found it difficult to conclude that Atty. Brillantes engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. However, the Court emphasized that Atty. Brillantes still failed to comply with the law and its legal processes, warranting administrative sanction.

    The Supreme Court found Atty. Brillantes guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court sternly warned him that any repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Brillantes violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly verify the identity of individuals signing a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. The complainants alleged that Atty. Brillantes notarized the document despite their being minors and without proper identification.
    What are the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice? These rules govern the proper procedures and requirements for notarizing documents. They ensure that notaries public act with due diligence and integrity in verifying the identities of signatories and attesting to the authenticity of documents.
    What constitutes competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules? Competent evidence of identity refers to identification based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. Alternatively, it can be the oath or affirmation of a credible witness who is not privy to the transaction and is personally known to the notary public.
    Why was Atty. Brillantes found guilty in this case? Atty. Brillantes was found guilty because he failed to ensure that the individuals signing the DREM presented competent evidence of identity as required by the 2004 Rules. He accepted Community Tax Certificates (CTCs), which do not bear the photograph and signature of the individuals.
    What penalties did Atty. Brillantes face? Atty. Brillantes was suspended from the practice of law for six months. Additionally, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    What is the significance of notarization in legal processes? Notarization transforms a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. This process relies on the notary public’s duty to verify the identity of signatories, ensuring the document’s integrity and legality.
    How did the complainants prove they were minors at the time of the DREM execution? The complainants presented their birth certificates as evidence, clearly indicating that they were minors at the time the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (DREM) was executed. This evidence contradicted the information presented to and accepted by Atty. Brillantes.
    What ethical rules did Atty. Brillantes violate, if any? While the court tempered its judgment due to some circumstances, the court indicated that he failed to uphold his duties as a lawyer, particularly his responsibility to obey the laws of the land and to avoid falsehood. His actions were inconsistent with the standards of professional conduct required of attorneys.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Navarrete v. Brillantes serves as a crucial reminder to all notaries public about the importance of diligently verifying the identities of individuals seeking notarization services. By adhering to the strict requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, lawyers can uphold their ethical obligations, protect the integrity of legal documents, and prevent potential harm to the public.

    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: MIGUEL G. NAVARRETE AND MIGUELITO G. NAVARRETE, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. CONSTANTE V. BRILLANTES, JR., RESPONDENT., G.R No. 68795, January 23, 2023

  • Upholding Notarial Duties: Proper Identification in Legal Documents

    In the case of Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite v. Atty. Raymund P. Guzman, the Supreme Court addressed the critical importance of proper identification in notarial practice. The Court found Atty. Guzman liable for failing to properly verify the identity of a signatory to a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale, relying only on a community tax certificate (CTC) which is not considered a competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This decision underscores the responsibility of notaries public to ensure the authenticity of documents and protect the public trust, with penalties imposed for negligence and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The ruling reinforces the need for strict compliance with notarial rules to maintain the integrity of legal documents and the notarial system.

    A Notary’s Oversight: When a Cedula Falls Short

    The administrative case was initiated by Florentino S. Unite, representing the heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, against Atty. Raymund P. Guzman. The central issue revolved around a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale notarized by Atty. Guzman, where the signatory, Jose Unite Torrices, claimed to be the sole heir of Herminigildo. However, Torrices presented only his community tax certificate (CTC) as proof of identity. The complainant argued that he, Florentino, was the rightful heir, and the notarization was improper due to the inadequate identification of Torrices. This action led to the cancellation of Herminigildo’s title and the issuance of a new one in favor of the buyer, Francisco U. Tamayo. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether Atty. Guzman violated the Notarial Rules by failing to properly identify the signatory.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the public interest inherent in the act of notarization. As stated in the decision:

    Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with public interest. Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credence. As such, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.

    This highlights the gravity of the responsibilities entrusted to notaries public. The Court referenced Section 2 (b) (1) and (2), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which stipulates that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present and either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Further defining this, Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules specifies what constitutes “competent evidence of identity”:

    Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:
    (a) At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or

    The Court noted Atty. Guzman’s failure to adhere to these rules. The Deed itself indicated that Torrices only presented a CTC, which does not meet the criteria for competent evidence of identity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a community tax certificate is not a valid form of identification for notarization purposes, emphasizing that competent identification requires a document with a photograph and signature.

    Atty. Guzman argued that he conducted further inquiries and required other documents, but the Court found this unconvincing since these details were not reflected in the Deed’s acknowledgment. The acknowledgment portion of the Deed stated that Torrices was “known to me,” which the Court distinguished from being “personally known.” The phrase “personally known” implies a deeper familiarity, independent of representations made during notarization, assuring the notary of the signatory’s identity without needing documentary verification. The Court clarified that personal knowledge comes from:

    awareness, understanding, or knowledge of the signatory’s identity and circumstances gained through firsthand observation or experience which therefore serve as guarantee of the signatory’s identity and thus eliminate the need for the verification process of documentary identification.

    Given that Atty. Guzman claimed to have conducted further verification, the Court inferred that he lacked the requisite personal knowledge of Torrices. The Court also underscored the ethical obligations of lawyers, citing Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By failing to properly perform his notarial duties, Atty. Guzman was found to have engaged in conduct that undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that notaries must be meticulous in their duties. Failure to properly verify the identity of signatories can lead to legal complications and erode public trust in the notarial system. The Court held Atty. Guzman liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer, imposing penalties that included suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from future commissions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Guzman violated the Notarial Rules by failing to properly verify the identity of a signatory using competent evidence, relying instead on a community tax certificate (CTC).
    What is considered “competent evidence of identity” under the Notarial Rules? Competent evidence includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as a passport, driver’s license, or PRC ID.
    Why is a community tax certificate (CTC) not considered a valid form of identification? A CTC is not considered valid because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before the notary public, which are crucial for proper identification.
    What is the difference between being “known to me” and “personally known” to a notary public? “Personally known” implies a deeper familiarity with the signatory’s identity and circumstances, gained through firsthand observation, which eliminates the need for documentary verification, unlike merely being “known to me.”
    What penalties were imposed on Atty. Guzman? Atty. Guzman was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    What ethical rule did Atty. Guzman violate? Atty. Guzman violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
    What is the significance of the act of notarization? Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, thus requiring notaries to exercise utmost care.
    Can a notary public be excused from requiring competent evidence of identity? Yes, if the signatory is personally known to the notary public, meaning the notary has firsthand knowledge of the signatory’s identity and circumstances independent of representations made during notarization.

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical role notaries public play in upholding the integrity of legal documents. Strict compliance with the Notarial Rules and ethical standards is paramount to maintaining public trust and ensuring the validity of notarized documents. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in severe penalties, impacting both the notary’s professional standing and the legal profession as a whole.

    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: Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite v. Atty. Raymund P. Guzman, G.R. No. 64418, July 02, 2018

  • Upholding Ethical Standards: Consequences for Notarial Violations in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, notaries public play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of legal documents. The Supreme Court decision in Carmelo Iringan v. Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan underscores the importance of strict compliance with notarial law. When a notary public fails to adhere to these standards, such as improperly verifying identities or neglecting to submit required reports, they face administrative penalties, including the revocation of their notarial commission and suspension from practice. This ruling reinforces the duty of lawyers to uphold the law and maintain public trust in the legal system.

    Breach of Trust: When a Notary’s Negligence Undermines a Contract

    The case revolves around a complaint filed by Carmelo Iringan against Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan concerning a notarized Contract of Lease. Carmelo alleged that Atty. Gumangan notarized the contract despite irregularities, including discrepancies in the community tax certificates (CTCs) of the parties involved and the failure to submit the notarial report to the Clerk of Court. He claimed he never appeared before Atty. Gumangan, that he never executed the contract, and that it was impossible for the contract to be executed and subscribed before Atty. Gumangan on December 30, 2005, because Renato Iringan’s CTC (08768743) was issued on January 17, 2006. Thus, the central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Gumangan violated the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and the applicable rules. The Court emphasized the significance of a notary public’s role in converting a private document into a public one, which carries evidentiary weight without the need for preliminary proof of authenticity. As highlighted in Agagon v. Bustamante:

    It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.

    The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which were in effect at the time of the notarization, required notaries public to ensure the proper identification of signatories. Specifically, Rule IV, Section 2(b) states that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

    The court found that Atty. Gumangan failed to comply with this requirement. He did not allege that he personally knew Renato and Carmelo, and he did not obtain competent evidence of their identities, which, according to Rule II, Section 12, includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. Instead, he proceeded with the notarization based on the promise that Renato and Carmelo would later provide their CTCs.

    The Supreme Court pointed out that CTCs are no longer considered competent evidence of identity, as stated in Baylon v. Almo, because of the ease with which they can be obtained. This negligence constituted a direct violation of the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court further noted Atty. Gumangan’s failure to submit his Notarial Report and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease to the RTC Clerk of Court, as required by Rule VI, Section 2(h) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that: A certified copy of each month’s entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. His failure to comply with these regulations further demonstrated a disregard for his duties as a notary public.

    Atty. Gumangan’s actions were deemed a breach of his duties as a lawyer and a notary public, undermining public trust in the integrity of notarized documents. The court emphasized the importance of notaries public discharging their duties with fidelity, as dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Thus, the Court found Atty. Gumangan guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a consequence, the Supreme Court revoked his incumbent commission as notary public, prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and directed him to report the date of his receipt of the Decision.

    It is important to note that while the irregularities in the notarization of the Contract of Lease were the basis for the administrative sanctions against Atty. Gumangan, these irregularities did not invalidate the contract itself. As the Court clarified, any defect in the notarization did not affect its validity, and it continued to be binding between Renato and Carmelo. The ruling in the administrative case did not affect the judgment rendered against Carmelo in the unlawful detainer case, Civil Case No. 518-09.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan violated the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility by improperly notarizing a Contract of Lease. This involved issues such as failing to verify the identities of the parties and not submitting the required notarial report to the Clerk of Court.
    What is ‘competent evidence of identity’ under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice? According to Rule II, Section 12, ‘competent evidence of identity’ refers to the identification of an individual based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency, bearing the photograph and signature of the individual. CTCs no longer qualify as competent evidence of the parties’ identity as defined under Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
    What were the penalties imposed on Atty. Gumangan? The Supreme Court revoked Atty. Gumangan’s incumbent commission as notary public and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately. He was also directed to report the date of his receipt of the Decision to enable the Court to determine when his suspension would take effect.
    Did the irregularities in the notarization invalidate the Contract of Lease? No, the Supreme Court clarified that the irregularities in the notarization did not invalidate the Contract of Lease itself. The contract continued to be binding between the parties, Renato and Carmelo Iringan.
    What is the duty of a notary public when notarizing documents? A notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct.
    What is the significance of notarization? Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without needing preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.
    What should a notary public do if the parties do not have proper identification? A notary public should not perform a notarial act if the person involved as a signatory to the instrument or document is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
    Why did the Supreme Court emphasize the importance of the Notarial Law? The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the Notarial Law because it upholds the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and maintains public confidence in notarial documents. Failure to comply undermines this integrity and erodes public trust.

    This case serves as a clear reminder of the responsibilities and ethical standards required of lawyers acting as notaries public. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that failing to comply with the Notarial Law, the Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility can lead to serious consequences, including the loss of notarial commission and suspension from practice.

    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: CARMELO IRINGAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLAYTON B. GUMANGAN, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 63384, August 16, 2017

  • Valid Jurat: Ensuring Proper Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

    The Supreme Court held that photocopies of identification cards from private organizations and a joint affidavit from co-petitioners do not constitute competent evidence of identity for verification and certification against forum shopping. This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court, especially regarding proper verification to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and certification to prevent parties from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different forums. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are essential for administering justice fairly and consistently, and only in exceptional circumstances should they be relaxed to prevent a greater injustice.

    Lost in Translation: When Defective Verification Derails a Case

    This case arose from complaints for illegal dismissal filed by Danny Singson, Rodolfo Pasaqui, Lendo Lominiqui, and Jun Andales against William Go Que Construction. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of the employees, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that the employees were validly dismissed for theft. Dissatisfied, the employees elevated their case to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA proceedings were marred by issues regarding the verification and certification against forum shopping, specifically concerning the proper identification of the affiants. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari due to non-compliance with these requirements.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping as outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[a] pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.” Furthermore, Section 5, Rule 7 requires the plaintiff or principal party to “certify under oath” that they have not commenced any action involving the same issues in any other court or tribunal. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the dismissal of the case.

    The Court found that the jurat of the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping attached to the petition for certiorari before the CA was defective because it did not adequately indicate the competent evidence of the affiants’ identities. The jurat is the part of the affidavit in which the notary public certifies that the affiant personally appeared before them, was identified, and took an oath affirming the truth of the document’s contents. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, or the “2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,” provides specific guidelines on what constitutes competent evidence of identity.

    Section 6, Rule II of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC defines a jurat as an act where an individual appears before a notary public, presents a document, is identified through competent evidence, signs the document in the notary’s presence, and takes an oath. Section 12, Rule II further clarifies that “competent evidence of identity” includes “at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.” The rule provides examples such as passports, driver’s licenses, and other government-issued IDs. It also allows for identification through the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the instrument, but only under specific conditions.

    In this case, the private respondents submitted photocopies of IDs from private organizations and a Joint-Affidavit attesting to the identity of one of the co-petitioners. The Court ruled that these documents did not meet the requirements of competent evidence of identity under Section 12 (a) and (b), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Because the submitted IDs were not issued by an official agency, and the Joint-Affidavit was provided by parties privy to the instrument, they could not serve as valid proof of identity. The Supreme Court also emphasized that it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement to that effect, which was lacking in this case.

    The Court acknowledged the principle in Fernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548 that non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective and can be addressed through substantial compliance. However, the Court found no substantial compliance in this case, as it could not be ascertained that any of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition due to the lack of competent evidence of their identities. Similarly, there was no substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement. As explained in Fernandez, defects in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of’special circumstances or compelling reasons,’ which were absent here.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted the apparent variance in the signatures of the remaining private respondents, Lominiqui and Andales, raising serious questions about the authenticity of their participation in the case. The Court noted that verification is required to ensure the allegations in the petition are made in good faith and are true and correct, while the certification against forum shopping is required to prevent a party from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora. Therefore, these requirements cannot be lightly disregarded absent any sustainable explanation, especially in light of the allegations of forgery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the CA gravely abused its discretion by treating the insufficient submissions as compliance, and the proper course of action would have been to dismiss the petition.

    The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential tools for administering justice in a fair and consistent manner. While there are exceptions where procedural rules may be relaxed to prevent injustice, such liberality is not warranted in this case. The Court emphasized that justice must be administered according to the rules to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness to all parties involved.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss a petition for certiorari due to non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping, specifically regarding the competent evidence of identity.
    What is a jurat? A jurat is the part of an affidavit where the notary public certifies that the affiant personally appeared before them, was properly identified, and swore to the truth of the document’s contents. It confirms that the affiant took an oath or affirmation before the notary public.
    What constitutes “competent evidence of identity” according to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice? Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official government agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as a passport or driver’s license. It can also be established through the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the instrument.
    Why were the IDs submitted in this case deemed insufficient? The photocopies of IDs from private organizations (La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village) were deemed insufficient because they were not issued by official government agencies. Additionally, the Joint Affidavit was provided by parties privy to the instrument, making it inadmissible.
    What is the purpose of verification and certification against forum shopping? Verification ensures that the allegations in a pleading are made in good faith and are true and correct. Certification against forum shopping prevents a party from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different courts or tribunals, avoiding conflicting decisions.
    Can non-compliance with verification and certification requirements be excused? While strict compliance is generally required, courts may allow substantial compliance in certain circumstances, such as when a person with ample knowledge swears to the truth of the allegations. However, defects in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons.
    What was the Court’s ruling in Fernandez v. Villegas and how does it apply here? In Fernandez v. Villegas, the Court stated that non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective and may be excused under certain circumstances. However, in this case, the Court found no substantial compliance to justify relaxing the rules.
    What is the significance of signature variances in legal documents? Signature variances can raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and the actual participation of the parties involved. In this case, variances in the signatures of the private respondents cast doubt on their involvement and the validity of the proceedings.
    What is the key takeaway from this case regarding procedural rules? The key takeaway is that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential tools for administering justice fairly and consistently. Compliance with these rules is generally required, and exceptions are only granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent a greater injustice.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules, especially regarding verification and certification against forum shopping. The ruling serves as a reminder that proper identification and compliance with notarial requirements are critical for ensuring the integrity of legal proceedings.

    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: William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016

  • Upholding Integrity: Notarial Duty and Consequences of Falsification

    The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the crucial role of a notary public in ensuring the authenticity of documents. The Court ruled that a lawyer who notarizes a document without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to notarial requirements to maintain public trust in legal documents, highlighting the severe consequences for lawyers who fail to uphold their duties.

    Compromised Oath: When a Notary’s Negligence Enables Fraud

    This case revolves around a complaint filed by Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against Atty. Roseller A. Viray for allegedly violating the Notarial Law. The core issue is whether Atty. Viray was negligent in notarizing an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, which Mrs. Agbulos denied executing. The document played a role in the alleged illegal transfer of property registered under Mrs. Agbulos’ name to Rolando Dollente, Atty. Viray’s client.

    Atty. Viray admitted to preparing and notarizing the affidavit at Dollente’s request. He claimed Dollente assured him the document was signed by Mrs. Agbulos and that the community tax certificate (CTC) presented belonged to her. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Atty. Viray liable, leading to a recommendation for suspension. The IBP noted that Atty. Viray notarized the document without the affiant’s personal appearance, relying solely on Dollente’s assurances.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of personal appearance before a notary public. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that a notary public cannot perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Competent evidence of identity is defined in Section 12, Rule II, as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature.

    x x x x

    (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document –

    (1)
    is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
    (2)
    is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

    Atty. Viray failed to adhere to these requirements. He notarized the affidavit without Mrs. Agbulos’ personal appearance, relying solely on Dollente’s word. The Court underscored the need for a notary public to verify the genuineness of the affiant’s signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act or deed. By failing to observe these rules, Atty. Viray did not ascertain the genuineness of the signature, which later proved to be a forgery.

    The Court cited Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, emphasizing the dangers of notarizing documents without the affiant’s physical presence.

    The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

    The Supreme Court reiterated the significance of notarization, stating that it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public must observe the basic requirements carefully to maintain public confidence in notarized documents.

    Atty. Viray’s negligence undermined the integrity of the notarial function. The Court stressed that the responsibility to observe the solemnity of an oath is more pronounced for lawyer-notaries due to their oath to obey the laws and avoid falsehood. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public must discharge their duties with fidelity, as dictated by public policy and interest. Given these failures, the Court increased the penalty recommended by the IBP.

    The Court found Atty. Viray guilty of breaching 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, effective immediately. The Court warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Viray violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without ensuring the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification.
    What is the importance of personal appearance before a notary public? Personal appearance allows the notary to verify the genuineness of the affiant’s signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act or deed, preventing fraud and misrepresentation.
    What constitutes competent evidence of identity? Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature.
    What is the role of a notary public? A notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, thus requiring utmost care in performing their duties.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Viray? Atty. Viray 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.
    Why was the penalty increased from the IBP’s recommendation? The penalty was increased because Atty. Viray not only prepared the document but also performed the notarial act without the affiant’s personal appearance and proper identification, facilitating fraud.
    What rule was violated regarding Notarial Practice? He violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the affiant’s personal presence and proper identification during notarization.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to notarial requirements to maintain public trust in legal documents and highlights the severe consequences for lawyers who fail to uphold their duties.
    What is the effect of notarization on a document? Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity.

    This decision serves as a strong reminder to all lawyers commissioned as notaries public to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The integrity of the notarial process is paramount, and any deviation can result in severe penalties, affecting both the lawyer’s professional standing and the public’s trust in the legal system.

    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: PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, G.R. No. 55514, February 18, 2013