Unite v. Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Florentino S. Unite, as sole heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, filed a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Raymund P. Guzman for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complainant alleged that respondent notarized a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale, where Jose Unite Torrices, claiming to be the sole heir of Herminigildo, sold a parcel of land to Francisco U. Tamayo. Torrices presented only his community tax certificate (CTC) as evidence of identity. The complainant asserted he is the only surviving heir and that Torrices is his cousin. As a result, Herminigildo's title was cancelled and a new one was issued to Tamayo. A civil case for annulment of the deed and title was filed. Procedural History: Respondent denied the charges, claiming he complied with the Notarial Rules by verifying identity through government IDs with pictures and CTCs, and inquiring about the parties' capacity. Complainant replied that a CTC is no longer competent evidence of identity and that other documents did not cure the absence of required identification. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable and recommended suspension and disqualification. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to reprimand, considering respondent personally knew the affiant and the CTC sufficed. Complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The issue before the Court was whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violating the Notarial Rules.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale using a Community Tax Certificate as the sole competent evidence of identity, thereby failing in his duty as a notary public and violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the Notarial Rules, considering the acknowledgment portion of the Deed and respondent's claims regarding additional identification checks.
Ruling
The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendations of the IBP with modifications. Respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman is found GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months; his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, is REVOKED; and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is WARNED that repetition of the offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that the act of notarization is impressed with public interest, requiring notaries public to observe utmost care and not to be part of illegal transactions. Under Section 2(b)(1) and (2), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, a notary public must have the signatory personally present and identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II of the same rules defines "competent evidence of identity" as a current identification document bearing a photograph and signature, or the oath of credible witnesses. The Court found that respondent failed to comply with these requirements as the Deed showed Torrices presented only a CTC, which is not considered competent evidence of identity because it lacks a photograph and signature. Jurisprudence has consistently held that a CTC is insufficient for identification purposes in notarization. By notarizing the Deed without competent evidence of identity, respondent failed in his duty as a notary public. As a lawyer, his conduct violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. His actions undermined the integrity of the notarial system and degraded the function of notarization. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. On the issue of the IBP's finding and the consideration of the Deed's acknowledgment: The Court disagreed with the IBP Board of Governors' finding that personal knowledge sufficed, emphasizing that the acknowledgment portion of the Deed did not state Torrices was "personally known" to respondent, but merely "known to me." The phrase "personally known" requires firsthand knowledge of the signatory's identity and circumstances, independent of any representations made during notarization. The Deed's acknowledgment did not reflect such personal knowledge. Furthermore, respondent's assertion that he required other government IDs and conducted interviews was belied by the Deed itself, which only mentioned the CTC.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must observe utmost care in performing duties, including verifying identity through competent evidence, to preserve public confidence in the notarial system. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.