MA. CORAZON D. FULGENCIO v. ATTY. BIENVENIDO G. MARTIN
403 SCRA 216 (2003)
A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties and must not act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio seeks imposition of disciplinary measures against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing two documents of sale in Isabale, Baslian purportedly executed by Fulgencio’s late husband Kua Se Beng. Fulgencio contends that the two documents could not have been executed by Kua because he was confined in the hospital at the date when the documents were notarized. Martin admits that he prepared and notarized the questioned documents without Kua personally appearing before him. He asserts, however, that he prepared and notarized the deeds upon the express consent and instructions of Kua.
The complaint was referred to the Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for recommendation. Both IBP Board of Governors and IBP Commissioner submitted their recommendations. They recommended that Atty. Martin be suspended for acting beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Martin followed the basic requirements of the practice of notary public
HELD:
The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is well-taken. Admittedly, Kua did not appear before respondent when he notarized the deeds in Basilan as he was then in Makati. Atty. Martin likewise failed to observe with utmost care a basic requirement in the performance of his duty as a notary public. 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.
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.
As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Martin is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct and, failing therein, he must bear the commensurate consequences. More, Atty. Martin breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
