Sanchez v. Inton
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ledesma D. Sanchez (Sanchez) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Carlito R. Inton (Inton) for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Sanchez alleged that on September 15, 2016, Inton notarized a document titled 'Kontrata ng Kasunduan' (Kasunduan) despite her absence, as she was at her store in Quezon City at the time. Furthermore, on February 10, 2017, Sanchez presented an 'Acknowledgment of Legal Obligation With Promissory Note' (Acknowledgment) at Inton's office, where his secretaries allegedly notarized the document and affixed Inton's signature without verifying the signatory's presence or identity. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Inton liable for failing to verify identities in the Kasunduan and for negligence regarding the Acknowledgment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings with a modification to the recommended penalty, suggesting a one-year disqualification from being a notary public and revocation of his commission. The Petition: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review. Inton argued that Sanchez had previously admitted to the notarization of the Kasunduan in a separate preliminary investigation. Regarding the Acknowledgment, he denied notarizing it, claiming it was not in his notarial books. He also pleaded for leniency due to his age (70) and health conditions, while his secretaries executed affidavits admitting they handled the documents.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to record competent evidence of identity of the signatories in the notarial certificate. Whether respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by allowing his secretaries to perform notarial acts and forge his signature.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, and his incumbent commission is REVOKED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Inton violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because in notarizing the Kasunduan, he failed to record the competent evidence of identity of the signatories in the notarial certificate. Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, a notary must ensure the signatory is in their presence and identified through competent evidence, which includes current government-issued identification bearing a photograph and signature. The Kasunduan's jurat was incomplete and lacked any mention of such identification, which belied Inton's claim that IDs were presented. On Issue 2: The Court found that Inton allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts and forge his signature, specifically regarding the Acknowledgment. A notarial commission is personal to the lawyer, and delegating these duties to non-lawyers is a grave violation of public interest. Such conduct also violates Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as it involves falsehood and deceitful conduct. Consequently, given Inton's prior reprimand for a similar infraction in Spouses Leynes v. Atty. Inton, the Court imposed a more severe penalty of two years' suspension and disqualification.
Main Doctrine
Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Consequently, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements, specifically the personal appearance of the affiant and the verification of their identity through competent evidence. A notarial commission is personal to each lawyer; thus, no other person, including office staff, should perform notarial acts or affix the notary's signature. Violation of these rules constitutes gross negligence and a breach of the lawyer's oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility.