LEGAL ETHICS – NOTARY PUBLIC

NOTARIZATION IS NOT AN EMPTY, MEANINGLESS, ROUTINARY ACT; NOTARIZATION

IS INVESTED WITH SUBSTANTIVE PUBLIC INTEREST

Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. It converts a

private document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon
the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. It is not
an empty routine; on the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as
notaries public from imposing upon the courts, administrative offices, and the public (Franco b.
Gonzales vs. Atty. Danilo B. Bañares, A.C. No. 11396. June 20, 2018).

DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE NOTARIZED UNLESS THE PERSONS WHO ARE

EXECUTING IT ARE THE VERY SAME ONES WHO ARE PERSONALLY APPEARING
BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents
and truth of what are stated in said document. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed (Franco b. Gonzales vs. Atty. Danilo
B. Bañares, A.C. No. 11396. June 20, 2018).

LEGAL ETHICS – CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANON 1 CLEARLY MANDATES THE OBEDIENCE OF EVERY LAWYER TO LAWS AND

LEGAL PROCESSES; ANY ACT OR OMISSION THAT IS CONTRARY TO, OR PROHIBITED
OR UNAUTHORIZED BY, OR IN DEFIANCE OF, DISOBEDIENT TO, OR DISREGARDS THE
LAW IS UNLAWFUL
A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid
any act or omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law. Rule
1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or
omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is unlawful (Franco b. Gonzales vs. Atty. Danilo B. Bañares, A.C. No.
11396. June 20, 2018).
NOTARIZATION IS NOT AN EMPTY, MEANINGLESS, ROUTINARY ACT; NOTARIZATION
IS INVESTED WITH SUBSTANTIVE PUBLIC INTEREST

DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE NOTARIZED UNLESS THE PERSONS WHO ARE

EXECUTING IT ARE THE VERY SAME ONES WHO ARE PERSONALLY APPEARING
BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC

FRANCO B. GONZALES, vs. ATTY. DANILO B. BAÑ ARES

[A.C. No. 11396. June 20, 2018.]
Peralta, J.:

FACTS
This is an administrative complaint which Franco B. Gonzales (Gonzales) filed against Atty. Danilo
B. Bañares (Banã res) for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in violation of the legal
requirements for notarization.

Gonzales contends that a Deed of Absolute Sale covering 3 parcels of land was executed
between his mother, as the seller, and Flordeliza Soriano, as the buyer. To his surprise, the name
and signature of his father were found in the document despite the fact that he was not present
at the time of the supposed signing of the document. Gonzales likewise found out that his own
name and signature appeared as witness in the document even if he was also not present during
the time of the signing. Gonzales maintains that Banã res knew of these facts and still proceeded
with the notarization of the document.

To deny the allegations against him, Bana ̃ res belied the absence of Gonzales using untrue
affidavits, one of which was executed by Gonzales’ mother. Banã res also claimed that Gonzale’s
father actually pre-signed the document to manifest his conformity as the seller’s husband.

The IBP Board of Governors imposed a stiff penalty of 6 months suspension from the practice of
law, immediate revocation of commission as Notary Public, and disqualification for 2 years as
Notary Public.

ISSUE
Did Bañares commit a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the
document despite the absence one of the signatories?

RULING
Yes, Bana ̃ res violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Rule IV, Sec.
2(b) which states the prohibition that “A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document – (1) is not in the noraty’s presence personally
at the time of notarization…” Thus, a document should not be notarized unless the persons who
are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public.
The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable
the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing
a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented
to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard
against illegal deeds. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
The Court cannot over-emphasize that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Well-settled is the rule that notarization is the act that
ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement between the
parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized
documents. The notary public is the one who assures that the parties appearing in the document
are indeed the same parties who executed it. This obviously cannot be achieved if the parties are
not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document since it is highly
possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be included in the
document submitted by the vendee for notarization. Worse, the possibility of forgery becomes
real. It should be noted that a notary public's function should not be trivialized; a notary public
must always discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with
accuracy and fidelity, and with carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must at all times inform
themselves of the facts they certify to. And most importantly, they should not take part or allow
themselves to be part of illegal transactions.

Here, the evidence on record highly suggest that Rodolfo was not present at the time of the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on September 23, 2010. There is no documentary or
testimonial evidence that would prove that, together with the parties and the other witnesses to
the document, he was present and personally affixed his signature on the deed before Bana ̃ res.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that Banã res himself declared that Rodolfo merely "pre-signed"
the document "to manifest his conformity as the seller's husband, but not as the co-owner of the
property." Such admission is contrary to his certification in the Acknowledgment of the Deed that
Rodolfo Gonzales "personally appeared before him on September 23, 2010, known to him and to
him known to be the same individual who executed the instrument and acknowledged that the
same is his free act and voluntary deed." Rodolfo's absence at the time and place of the execution
of the subject deed is made even more manifest by the lack of mention of his presence in the
affidavits of the other parties to said deed.

The SC finds Bañares administratively liable or notarizing the subject deed of sale without Rodolfo
personally appearing before him. He cannot avoid responsibility by pointing out that he had a prior
meeting with Lilia and Rodolfo, and the latter had already given him his conformity to the sale. He
should have just made the necessary arrangements so that all the parties and witnesses would
be present at the time of the signing of the deed. The SC upholds the findings and
recommendations of the IBP.
CANON 1 CLEARLY MANDATES THE OBEDIENCE OF EVERY LAWYER TO LAWS AND
LEGAL PROCESSES; ANY ACT OR OMISSION THAT IS CONTRARY TO, OR PROHIBITED
OR UNAUTHORIZED BY, OR IN DEFIANCE OF, DISOBEDIENT TO, OR DISREGARDS THE
LAW IS UNLAWFUL

FRANCO B. GONZALES, vs. ATTY. DANILO B. BAÑ ARES

[A.C. No. 11396. June 20, 2018.]
Peralta, J.:

FACTS
This is an administrative complaint which Franco B. Gonzales (Gonzales) filed against Atty. Danilo
B. Bañares (Banã res) for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in violation of the legal
requirements for notarization.

Gonzales contends that a Deed of Absolute Sale covering 3 parcels of land was executed
between his mother, as the seller, and Flordeliza Soriano, as the buyer. To his surprise, the name
and signature of his father were found in the document despite the fact that he was not present
at the time of the supposed signing of the document. Gonzales likewise found out that his own
name and signature appeared as witness in the document even if he was also not present during
the time of the signing. Gonzales maintains that Banã res knew of these facts and still proceeded
with the notarization of the document.

Considering his acts as a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, the IBP Board of Governors
imposed a penalty of 6 months suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of
commission as Notary Public, and disqualification for 2 years as Notary Public. Which the SC

ISSUE
̃ res fall within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR?
Does the violation of Bana

RULING
Yes, Bana ̃ res’ act of notarizing a document in violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice falls
squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR. A lawyer's personal deference
to the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and
obey the law. Rule 1.01, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or
omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is unlawful. To be dishonest means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud, or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness, and straightforwardness, while conduct that is deceitful means the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is
ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.

The SC reiterates that membership in the legal profession is a privilege that is bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.
Hence, the violation of Bañares in notarizing a document in violation of the rules is evidently
contrary to, prohibited, disobedient to, and disregards the law and is therefore unlawful. His act is
a violation of the clear mandate of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 that a lawyer, to the best of his ability, is
expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to
the same.