Mahilum v. Lezama
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Emerita B. Mahilum filed an administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama, a commissioned notary public, for allegedly notarizing a 'Deed of Donation' in the absence of one of the affiants, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. The deed pertained to Rodolfo Mahilum's share of a parcel of land, with Jennifer as the donee. The complainant asserted that Jennifer was in the United States of America during the dates the deed was signed and notarized (February 7, 2006, and May 24, 2006, respectively). Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Negros Occidental Chapter found that the respondent failed to exercise diligence in ascertaining the identity of the affiant, as official records showed Jennifer did not enter the Philippines in 2006. The IBP recommended the revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing lack of damage, no financial benefit, and that he knew the donor personally. The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion. The Petition: The respondent appealed the IBP's resolution to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Donation in the absence of one of the affiants. Whether the respondent's actions constituted mere carelessness or a deliberate disregard of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His incumbent notarial commission was REVOKED, and he was DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for ONE (1) YEAR, effective immediately. He was also WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that the official record from the Bureau of Immigration, showing that Jennifer never traveled to the Philippines in 2006, substantially established that she could not have personally appeared before the respondent when he notarized the deed of donation on May 24, 2006. This conclusive evidence could not be overcome by the respondent's mere counter-allegations unsupported by corroborative proof. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Notarial Law) mandates that affiants must personally appear before the notary public, who must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. Corollary to this, Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 enjoins a commissioned notary public from performing a notarial act unless the affiant is in his presence at the time of notarization and is personally known or identified through competent evidence. The physical presence of the affiants is crucial for the notary public to verify the genuineness of signatures and ascertain that the document is the parties' free act and deed, as emphasized in Angeles v. Ibañez. Notarization converts a private document into a public one, and the public must be able to rely on the acknowledgment executed by the notary public. The respondent, despite being a notary public for 35 years, failed to observe these rules. His act of notarizing the deed of donation in the absence of Jennifer, while attesting to her personal appearance, constituted a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law, as established in Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe. The respondent misled the public and the courts by affixing his signature and seal, implying Jennifer's personal appearance and attestation when she was not present. On the issue of whether the respondent's actions constituted mere carelessness or a deliberate disregard of the Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court found that the respondent deliberately disregarded the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Notarial Law, contrary to the IBP's finding of mere carelessness. The respondent accommodated the notarization of the deed without Jennifer's physical appearance, relying on the donor's representation because he was personally acquainted with Rodolfo. This reliance, even if Jennifer's signature were genuine, did not negate the fact that she was not personally present to attest to her acceptance as donee during notarization. Carelessness implies a situation where the affiant was present but the notary forgot to verify identity or the affiant was not known. Here, the affiant was not physically present, yet the notary public affixed his seal and signature attesting to her personal appearance. This act, which contravenes the guidelines, is a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. The Court stressed that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth therein, as reiterated in Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe. The respondent's misconduct could lead to precarious legal consequences if the deed of donation were to spawn court intervention.
Main Doctrine
A notary public commits a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarizes a document in the absence of one of the affiants, especially when official records conclusively show that the affiant could not have personally appeared before him on the date of notarization. Such an act is not mere carelessness but a deliberate disregard of the rules.