Uy v. Apuhin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rolando N. Uy (Uy) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edmundo J. Apuhin for alleged false notarization of a Joint Waiver of Rights, Interests and Ownership (Joint Waiver) covering a property owned by Uy and his wife. Uy alleged that the Joint Waiver, dated July 2, 2006, which purported to convey their property to their son, Rick Rosner Uy, was executed and acknowledged before Atty. Apuhin while Uy and his wife were in Taiwan. Uy discovered this upon his return to the Philippines and subsequently filed an administrative complaint for falsity in the conduct of his duties as a notary public, violating Sections 3 and 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Lawyers' Oath. Uy also claimed prejudice to his ownership rights, necessitating civil and criminal cases against his son and sister. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ordered Atty. Apuhin to submit an answer. Atty. Apuhin, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed it was not his duty to inquire into the whereabouts of his clients and that he relied on the representation of the parties. He also stated he could not remember all his clients' faces or whether they signed personally. The IBP-CBD recommended disqualification from commission as a notary public for one year and suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation with modification, revoking Atty. Apuhin's notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors later denied Atty. Apuhin's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Apuhin violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Lawyer's Oath by falsely notarizing the Joint Waiver. Whether Atty. Apuhin failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the identities of the signatories to the Joint Waiver.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Edmundo J. Apuhin liable for violation of Section 12(1) & (2), Rule II and Section 2(b)(1) & (2), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His notarial commission, if presently commissioned, was revoked. He was disqualified from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective immediately upon receipt of the Resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Lawyer's Oath: The Court affirmed that Atty. Apuhin violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Joint Waiver, dated July 2, 2006, was notarized by Atty. Apuhin, but records, including a Certification from the Bureau of Immigration, showed that Uy was in Taiwan on that date. The Court emphasized that the notarization of a document is vested with substantive public interest, and the public must be able to rely on acknowledgments executed by notaries public. Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires that an individual must appear in person before the notary public, be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed and that the document was executed as a free and voluntary act. Section 2(b), Rule IV explicitly states that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. Atty. Apuhin's failure to ensure the personal appearance of the signatories directly contravened these provisions. On the failure to exercise due diligence: The Court found Atty. Apuhin's lack of due diligence fortified by his own statements in his Counter-Affidavit. He argued that it was beyond his obligation to investigate his clients' identities and that he relied solely on representations made to him. This reliance on mere representations, without requiring competent evidence of identity, directly violated Sections 12(1) and (2), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. These sections mandate the presentation of at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath of credible witnesses. Atty. Apuhin, with 35 years of practice as a lawyer and notary public, should have been aware of the import of documents involving alienation of property and the stringent requirements for their notarization. His failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in verifying the true identity of the signatories was a clear breach of his duties.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must ensure that the signatory personally appears before them, is personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity, and voluntarily affixes their signature for the purposes stated in the document. Failure to observe these requirements constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Lawyer's Oath.