Case Digest: SERZO v. ATTY. FLORES

ZENAIDA GONZALES SERZO v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES

435 SCRA 412 (2004)

A notary public is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public.

Petitioner Zenaida Gonzales Serzo filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores arising from his notarization of Deed of Absolute Sale covering a parcel of land owned by Serzo’s deceased father Neybardo Gonzales. In the Deed of Absolute Sale, the deceased Gonzales purportedly sold the land to Yolanda dela Cruz, whose signature, as well as that of Gonzales, appears thereon. Further, Amelia Gonzales Laureno, Serzo’s sister, signed in the document on behalf of their mother, giving marital consent.

Atty. Flores does not deny having notarized the document but he alleged that the parties to the document, especially dela Cruz who is known or familiar to the staff of Atty. Flores, had previous records of executed instruments and documents relating to the land subject of the complaint. Flores also alleged that he could no longer recall the names and the parties to the Deed of Absolute Sale for they are not familiar to him and considering that the document was notarized almost two (2) years ago.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Flores guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as notary public ―by failing to establish the identity of the person appearing before him‖.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Flores should be found guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as notary public

HELD:

Notarization is not anempty, 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.

Having, by his act, undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

More particularly Rule 1.01 thereof which enjoins a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, Atty. Flores must indeed be faulted.