Case Digest: TRAYA, JR.bv. ATTY. VILLAMOR

OCTAVIO J. TRAYA, JR.bv. ATTY. FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR

422 SCRA 293 (2004)

It is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that the document presented to him for notarization should be signed in his presence.

Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya filed an application for building permit in connection with the renovation of a building situated on a lot owned by her brother Rolando C. de la Cruz. One of the documents required in the processing of the application was an affidavit to be executed by the lot owner. Since de la Cruz was a resident abroad, an affidavit was prepared wherein it was made to appear that he was a resident Leyte, that he is the owner of the lot and that he is executing the affidavit to attest to the veracity of the facts thereby certifying the compliance with the requirements relative to the application for Locational Clearance/Certificate of Zoning Compliance.

Complainant Octavio J. Traya, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco M. Villamor for having notarized the spurious affidavit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Villamor violated the legal ethics of a notary public when he failed to observe the proper procedure in determining if a person appearing before him is the same person who executed the document presented for notarization

HELD:

By Villamor’s admission, the affidavit was already signed by the purported affiant at the time it was presented to him for notarization. Thus, he failed to heed his duty as a notary public to demand that the document for notarization be signed in his presence.

Also by Villamor’s admission, when the affidavit was brought to him, it already bore the Residence Certificate Number of the ―affiant‖ which residence certificate number turned out to be that of de la Cruz’s brother in law, Benjamin Catalya, husband of his sister Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya. Where a lawyer as a notary makes it appear in the acknowledgment or jurat of a contract that the affiant exhibited to him a residence certificate when in fact he did not, the notary is guilty of misconduct. Such misrepresentation is unquestionably censurable and justifies disciplinary action against him as a member of the bar and as a notary public.