Case Digest: FIDEL D. AQUINO v. ATTY. OSCAR MANESE

FIDEL D. AQUINO v. ATTY. OSCAR MANESE

A.C. No. 4958, 3 April 2003

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 therein.

Complainant Fidel D. Aquino (Aquino) charged respondent Atty. Oscar Manese (Atty. Manese) with falsification of public document for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale with Lilia D. Cardona (Cardona) as one of the vendors-signatories, when in fact, Cardona had already died 4 years ago.
Atty. Manese asserted that he is merely doing his duty as a Notary Public. Also, he cannot be expected to know every person who comes to his office for notarization of documents.

In a Resolution issued by the IBP Board of Governors, it ruled that ―Atty. Manese was gravely remiss in his obligation as a notary public‖ and recommended that ―Atty. Manese’s commission as a Notary Public be revoked and be suspended with disqualification for appointment as Notary Public for a period of 2 years.‖

ISSUE:

Whether or not the IBP Board of Governor’s recommendation to revoke and suspend Atty. Manese’s commission as a Notary Public for 2 years is proper

HELD:

IBP Board of Governor’s Resolution, which is before this Court for final action pursuant to Sec. 12 par. (b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, is well-taken.

The death on November 25, 1990 of Lilia Cardona is documented. Her Death Certificate shows so. The National Bureau of Investigation, which made a comparative examination of her specimen signatures and that appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale, found that the signature on the latter and the specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person.

In the Acknowledgment in the deed, Manese affirmed that before him ―personally appeared said vendors [including the late Lilia Cardona] whose (sic) personal circumstances are shown above below their names and signatures, all known to [him] and to [him] known to be the same individual (sic) who executed th[e] instrument and acknowledged to [him] that the same is their free act and voluntary deed.‖

The said acknowledgment notwithstanding, Manese asseverated in his Comment to the letter-complaint that he is not expected to personally know every person who goes to him for notarization of documents. Such jaunty indifference betrays his deplorable failure to heed the importance of the notarial act and observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary public which include the ascertainment that the persons who signed the document are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him.

The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 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.

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. Hence 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 therein. 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. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)

By Manese’s reckless act of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein, he has undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.