ASG Law

Tag: Document Falsification

  • 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 Integrity: Consequences for Notarizing Documents Without Personal Appearance

    The Supreme Court held that a lawyer who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the parties involved violates the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such actions undermine the integrity of the notarization process, which is imbued with public interest, and can lead to suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the required formalities in notarizing documents to maintain public trust and confidence in the legal profession.

    Forged Signatures and Broken Trust: When a Notary Public Fails His Duty

    This case arose from a complaint filed by Nenita De Guzman Ferguson against Atty. Salvador P. Ramos, alleging falsification, violation of notarial law, and engaging in private practice while employed in government service. The core issue revolved around a deed of sale where the complainant alleged that her signature and that of her husband were forged, and that Atty. Ramos notarized the deed without their presence. While Atty. Ramos denied notarizing the specific deed in question, he admitted to notarizing another deed of sale for the same property but could not provide evidence that the parties involved were present.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the importance of the affiant’s personal appearance before a notary public, as mandated by Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, also known as the Notarial Law, and Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. These rules are in place to ensure the genuineness of the signature and to verify the identity of the person executing the document. This verification is critical because notarization transforms a private document into a public document, giving it evidentiary weight and allowing it to be admitted in court without further proof of its execution and delivery.

    The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

    In this case, the complainant presented evidence showing that her husband was not in the Philippines on the date Atty. Ramos claimed to have notarized the “genuine” deed of sale. This evidence directly contradicted Atty. Ramos’ claim and demonstrated a clear violation of the Notarial Law. Moreover, the Court noted the irregularity of both the allegedly forged deed and the admitted “genuine” deed bearing the same document number, page number, and book number in Atty. Ramos’ notarial registry. This raised further questions about the integrity of Atty. Ramos’ notarial practices.

    The Supreme Court cited Gonzales v. Ramos to underscore the significance of notarization: “By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture.” The Court held that by failing to ensure the personal appearance of the parties, Atty. Ramos not only violated the Notarial Law but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and avoid engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers act with the highest standards of integrity and fidelity.

    The Court also emphasized that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public must exercise utmost care in performing the duties of the office. The act of notarization carries a presumption of regularity, and courts and the public rely on the authenticity of notarized documents. Thus, any deviation from the prescribed procedures undermines public trust and confidence in the legal system. Breaching this trust has serious consequences for the lawyer involved.

    The Court found that Atty. Ramos’ actions warranted disciplinary measures, aligning with previous cases such as Santuyo v. Atty. Hidalgo and Ocampo-Ingcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., where similar violations led to penalties ranging from suspension of notarial commission to suspension from the practice of law. Given the gravity of the violations and the potential for harm to the public, the Supreme Court ultimately decided to suspend Atty. Ramos from the practice of law for six months, revoke his notarial commission, and permanently bar him from being commissioned as a notary public.

    Furthermore, the Court deemed it necessary to refer the matter to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for an assessment of the correct tax implications and for investigation into potential criminal liability under the National Internal Revenue Code, given the presence of two different deeds of sale with varying amounts. This referral highlights the broader implications of the falsification and the potential for tax evasion, reinforcing the importance of thorough investigation and prosecution.

    This case serves as a reminder to all lawyers, especially those commissioned as notaries public, to strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing notarial practice. The integrity of the legal profession depends on the ethical conduct of its members, and any deviation from these standards can have serious consequences for both the individual lawyer and the public they serve.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Atty. Ramos violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a deed of sale without the personal appearance of all parties involved. The Supreme Court addressed the importance of personal appearance in the notarization process and the consequences of failing to adhere to established procedures.
    What is the importance of notarization? Notarization transforms a private document into a public document, giving it evidentiary weight. Courts and the public rely on the authenticity of notarized documents, making the process crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system.
    What are the requirements for proper notarization? The notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the signatories, verify their identity, and certify that they executed the document voluntarily. These requirements are outlined in the Notarial Law and the Rules on Notarial Practice.
    What happens if a notary public fails to comply with these requirements? A notary public who fails to comply with the requirements may face disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. Criminal charges may also be possible depending on the severity.
    What is the role of the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case? The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to uphold the law, avoid dishonest conduct, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Atty. Ramos’ actions were found to have violated these ethical standards.
    Why was the case referred to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)? The case was referred to the BIR due to discrepancies in the deeds of sale and the potential for tax evasion. The BIR was tasked to assess the correct tax implications and investigate any criminal liability under the National Internal Revenue Code.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court found Atty. Ramos guilty of violating the Notarial Practice rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public.
    What is the key takeaway from this case for lawyers? Lawyers must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing notarial practice. Failure to do so can have serious consequences, including disciplinary actions and damage to their professional reputation.

    This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to legal standards for all members of the legal profession. By upholding the integrity of the notarization process, lawyers contribute to the fairness and reliability of 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: Nenita De Guzman Ferguson v. Atty. Salvador P. Ramos, A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017

  • Breach of Notarial Duty: Lawyers Held Accountable for False Affidavits

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Domado Disomimba Sultan v. Atty. Casan Macabanding underscores the grave responsibility of lawyers who act as notaries public. The Court found Atty. Macabanding administratively liable for notarizing a falsified affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy, emphasizing that lawyers must uphold the integrity of the legal profession and avoid any involvement in deceitful conduct. This case serves as a stern warning to notaries public to exercise utmost care and diligence in performing their duties, ensuring the authenticity of documents and the presence of affiants to prevent fraudulent transactions.

    The Forged Candidacy: Can a Notary Be Held Liable?

    In 2007, Domado Disomimba Sultan ran for mayor in Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur. During the election period, an Affidavit of Withdrawal of his Certificate of Candidacy surfaced, seemingly retracting his bid. The twist? Sultan claimed he never signed nor authorized such a document. Atty. Casan Macabanding notarized this controversial affidavit, setting off a chain of legal battles involving the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and criminal charges. At the heart of the dispute was whether Atty. Macabanding could be held liable for notarizing what turned out to be a falsified document, and what duties a notary public holds when administering oaths.

    The case reached the Supreme Court after the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended sanctions against Atty. Macabanding. The central issue revolved around the authenticity of Sultan’s signature on the Affidavit of Withdrawal, which the COMELEC had relied upon to initially remove Sultan’s name from the list of candidates. The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report No. 428-907 played a crucial role, concluding that the signature on the affidavit did not match Sultan’s specimen signatures. This finding directly contradicted Atty. Macabanding’s claim that Sultan had voluntarily signed the affidavit in his presence.

    Atty. Macabanding argued that the NBI expert lacked expertise in the Arabic language, suggesting that this undermined the credibility of the NBI report. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, citing Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and Domado Disomimba Sultan, which clarified that a handwriting expert does not need to be a linguist to analyze signatures. The Court emphasized that the examination focuses on the strokes, pressure points, and other physical characteristics of the handwriting, regardless of the language used. This precedent reinforced the validity of the NBI’s findings and their admissibility as evidence.

    The Court then addressed the standard of proof required in administrative cases against lawyers. Citing Rodica v. Lazaro, the Court reiterated that the complainant must prove the allegations by a **preponderance of evidence**. This means that the evidence presented by the complainant must be more convincing than that presented by the respondent. In this case, the NBI report, coupled with Sultan’s denial of signing the affidavit, constituted sufficient evidence to meet this standard.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the grave responsibility placed upon lawyers who act as notaries public, stating: “Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.” This underscored the ethical and professional obligations of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The Court also emphasized that notaries public must exercise care and faithfulness in performing their duties, and must not participate in illegal transactions.

    A crucial point was that Atty. Macabanding admitted to notarizing the affidavit without Sultan’s presence, a clear violation of notarial rules. This admission further strengthened the case against him and demonstrated his failure to properly discharge his duties as a notary public. By allowing the notarization of a document without ensuring the affiant’s presence, Atty. Macabanding exposed himself to administrative liability.

    Drawing from established jurisprudence, such as Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana and Agbulos v. Viray, the Court emphasized the consistency in sanctions imposed on lawyers who fail to adhere to notarial duties. These cases consistently resulted in penalties such as suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The Court emphasized that the role of a notary is imbued with public interest, necessitating diligence and integrity.

    The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the duties of a notary public are not merely ministerial but require a high degree of care and integrity, particularly when the notary is also a lawyer. The Court found Atty. Macabanding administratively liable for misconduct, leading to his suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. This ruling reinforces the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession and the need for lawyers to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Macabanding could be held administratively liable for notarizing a falsified affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy. The central question was whether the notary public upheld their duty by notarizing the document in question.
    What evidence supported the claim that the affidavit was falsified? The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report concluded that the signature on the affidavit did not match Sultan’s specimen signatures. This scientific evidence, along with Sultan’s denial of signing the document, established the falsification.
    Did the Court find it problematic that the NBI expert was not a linguist? No, the Court cited precedent stating that a handwriting expert does not need to be a linguist to analyze signatures. The analysis focuses on the physical characteristics of the handwriting, regardless of the language used.
    What standard of proof is required in administrative cases against lawyers? The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence, meaning the evidence presented by the complainant must be more convincing than that presented by the respondent. This threshold is used to determine if a lawyer’s conduct warrants disciplinary action.
    What sanctions were imposed on Atty. Macabanding? Atty. Macabanding was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. These penalties reflected the severity of his misconduct.
    Why is the role of a notary public considered important? The role of a notary public is important because it is impressed with public interest, requiring carefulness and faithfulness in verifying the authenticity of documents. Notaries must not participate in or facilitate illegal transactions.
    What is the primary duty of a notary public? A notary public’s primary duty is to ensure the authenticity of documents and the identity of the person signing them. This involves verifying signatures, administering oaths, and preventing fraud.
    What does it mean to act with ‘preponderance of evidence’? Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence presented by one side is more convincing and carries greater weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side. It is the standard used in civil and administrative cases.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sultan v. Macabanding emphasizes the critical role lawyers play as notaries public and underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession. This case sets a clear precedent for holding notaries accountable for their actions, particularly when they involve falsified documents or a failure to adhere to established notarial procedures. Legal professionals must remain vigilant and committed to ethical conduct in all aspects of their 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: DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN VS. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING, A.C. No. 7919, October 08, 2014