Maria v. Cortez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant William Hector Maria (William) filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without verifying the authenticity of the signatures therein. William and his wife Ernita (Spouses Maria) met Emmanuel and Ethel Biteng (Spouses Biteng), who offered parcels of land for sale. Emmanuel presented an SPA, notarized by respondent, allegedly signed by his aunts Gundaway and Namnama, appointing him as attorney-in-fact. William doubted the SPA's authenticity as it was a photocopy and Gundaway and Namnama were allegedly abroad and had not executed such a document. Spouses Maria proceeded to sign Deeds of Sale and Adjudication with Sale, relying on the Spouses Biteng's promise of a duly signed SPA notarized in the USA. Later, Spouses Maria discovered that Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in their names but were held by Spouses Biteng, who refused delivery. Gundaway and Namnama confirmed they did not execute any SPA in favor of Emmanuel. Upon reviewing the documents, William noticed they were all notarized by respondent, prompting the filing of the administrative case. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP found respondent administratively liable for notarizing the SPA without the affiants' personal appearance and without verifying their signatures, recommending reprimand and disqualification from being a notary public for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Court noted the denial. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the respondent's suspension as a notary public and disbarment for violating his sworn duty as a lawyer.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez violated the Notarial Law and the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without verifying the authenticity of the signatures and the personal appearance of the alleged signatories. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. While the IBP recommended a reprimand and disqualification for one year, the Supreme Court modified the penalty, imposing a reprimand and disqualification for six (6) months as notary public. The Court also cautioned all notaries public to be diligent in their duties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Notarial Law and Rules: The Court held that respondent Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule explicitly prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or otherwise identified by competent evidence of identity. In his Answer, respondent admitted that he relied on his secretaries to scrutinize documents, including the authenticity of signatures, before he affixed his notarial signature. This practice was confirmed in the case of the subject SPA, where respondent notarized it without requiring the physical presence of Gundaway and Namnama, whose names appeared as signatories. The respondent's excuse that the SPA was not used in the registration of the lands was deemed irrelevant, as the violation occurred at the time of notarization. The Court emphasized that a notary public's function is impressed with public interest and requires accuracy and fidelity, and they must not allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. The respondent's admission of relying on his secretaries without personal verification constituted negligence and a failure to exercise the required due diligence. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent was administratively liable, but modified the penalty. While the IBP recommended a reprimand and disqualification for one year, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances, particularly the absence of bad faith and the fact that this was the respondent's first infraction in twenty years of practice. Therefore, the Court found that a suspension of six (6) months as a notary public would suffice. The Court reiterated that removal from the Bar should not be decreed if a less severe punishment would achieve the desired end. The Court also issued a strong caution to the respondent and all other notaries public to be extremely careful and diligent in ascertaining the identities of parties executing documents, especially those involving property disposition, warning that such cases would be dealt with more severely in the future.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise due diligence in verifying the authenticity of signatures and the identity of signatories. Failure to require the personal appearance of signatories before him, or to identify them through competent evidence, constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and warrants administrative sanction.