Kiener v. Amores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant John Paul Kiener filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Ricardo R. Amores, a commissioned notary public and private prosecutor in a criminal case where John Paul was the accused. The case stemmed from the notarization of a Secretary's Certificate by Atty. Amores, which authorized the filing of the criminal case on behalf of Pado's Divecamp Resort Corporation. John Paul alleged that the Secretary's Certificate was defective because Atty. Amores failed to indicate his notarial commission number and that the signatory's (Irene Medalla, Corporate Secretary) signature appeared to be a scanned or printed copy, implying she was not physically present during notarization. John Paul claimed this violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and Canons 1, 10, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Procedural History: The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the complaints. The OCA referred its complaint to the OBC. Atty. Amores filed a Comment, asserting that Irene signed the certificate in his presence and that reproduced signatures are common practice. He also argued that the allegations should be raised in the criminal case. The case was consolidated with another administrative case (A.C. No. 9055) and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of Atty. Amores's notarial commission. However, the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) reversed this, dismissing the case based on the presumption of regularity and finding that Irene was present and signed the document. John Paul's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case, disagreeing with the IBP's findings and holding Atty. Amores administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Amores violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Secretary's Certificate without the signatory's physical presence and by failing to indicate his notarial commission number. Whether the IBP correctly dismissed the administrative case against Atty. Amores.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ricardo R. Amores guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if existing, is revoked, and he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that Atty. Amores violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest, requiring strict compliance with basic requirements to maintain public confidence. The Court emphasized that a jurat, as performed in this case, requires the signatory to appear in person before the notary public, present an instrument, be personally known or identified, sign in the notary's presence, and take an oath or affirmation. Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and not personally known or identified. The Court found Atty. Amores's defense that Irene signed one copy which was then reproduced unconvincing, as he failed to present proof of Irene's physical presence. The Court noted that Irene's signature was a printed or scanned copy, indicating it was not an actual handwritten signature affixed in the notary's presence. Furthermore, Atty. Amores failed to indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial certificate, a clear violation of the rules. These violations also constitute a breach of Canon 1 of the CPR, specifically Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. On the IBP's dismissal of the case: The Court disagreed with the IBP's dismissal of the case. The IBP's reliance on the presumption of regularity was overcome by the evidence presented and the clear violations of the notarial rules. The Court found that the factual circumstances, particularly the nature of the signature and the absence of proof of physical presence, demonstrated that Atty. Amores failed to perform his duties as a notary public. The Court reiterated that a notary public must verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed, which cannot be done without the signatory's personal appearance. Therefore, the IBP's conclusion that the presumption of regularity was not overcome was erroneous.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must strictly comply with the notarial rules, including the requirement of the signatory's physical presence and the proper indication of the notarial commission number. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.