Sappayani v. Gasmen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani (Sappayani) filed a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent Atty. Renato G. Gasmen (Atty. Gasmen), a notary public. Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized documents, specifically a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and an Application for Loan and Promissory Note (loan application), which purportedly authorized one Romeo N. Maravillas (Maravillas) to secure a loan for Sappayani. Sappayani denied executing these documents, claiming his signature was forged and that it was physically impossible for him to appear before Atty. Gasmen as he was undergoing training in General Santos City. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). After several postponements and Atty. Gasmen's failure to appear, the IBP Commissioner terminated the proceedings and ordered the submission of position papers. The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), recommending suspension from practice, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation, denying Atty. Gasmen's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Gasmen liable for violations of the Notarial Rules and the CPR.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Gasmen correctly performed his duties as a notary public in notarizing the SPA and loan application, and whether this violated the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP. Respondent Atty. Renato G. Gasmen was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his incumbent commission as a notary public was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He was warned that repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Atty. Gasmen correctly performed his duties as a notary public and violated the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that the IBP correctly found Atty. Gasmen liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but is impressed with substantial public interest, requiring accuracy and fidelity. A notary public owes it to the public to notarize only when the person signing the document is the same person who executed it and personally appeared before him. The Court cited Section 1 (a) of Act No. 2103, which requires the notary public to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged it as his free act and deed. Furthermore, Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present or personally known to the notary. The Court rejected Atty. Gasmen's defense that notarization was done on a ministerial basis after loan proceeds were released, stating that this practice dispenses with the need for notarization and that the volume of applications does not excuse the failure to observe proper safeguards. The Court reiterated that the failure of a notary public to observe utmost care in performing his duties not only causes damage to affected parties but also undermines the integrity of the notary public and the function of notarization. As a lawyer, Atty. Gasmen is expected to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, which he committed by notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the affiant. The Court found that Atty. Gasmen did not deny notarizing the documents without Sappayani's presence and indirectly admitted doing so with other similar documents, thus countenancing fraud.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's certification is impressed with public interest, accuracy, and fidelity. Failure to require the personal appearance of the affiant and to verify their identity constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, as notarization is not a mere ministerial act but one that converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit.