Bringing Back the Dead

By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico

 

In the case of ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent (A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015), the First Division of the Supreme Court was presented with an administrative case involving a notary public, who notarized an affidavit where one of the affiants had died 3 years before. In this particular case, the dead was literally brought back to life, said the decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The case started in January 15, 2006, when Atty. Christopher A. Basilio “notarized a document entitled “Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings” (Joint Affidavit), purportedly subscribed and sworn to before him by Loreto M. Tañedo (Tanedo) and Ramon T. Lim x x x, despite the fact that Tañedo had already passed away as early as December 1, 2003.”

On May 2009, Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome filed an administrative case against Atty. Basilio before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).

Atty. Basilio “admitted having notarized the Joint Affidavit but claimed that, prior to the notarization, he verified the identities of the persons who appeared before him through their respective Social Security System (SSS) identification cards and driver’s licenses. He further denied any knowledge that the one who appeared before him misrepresented himself as Tañedo and that the latter was already dead as of December 1, 2003.”

In June 2010, IBP Investigating Commissioner Randal Tabayoyong filed his Report and Recommendation with a finding that “Basilio was found to have manifested gross negligence and a complete disregard of the Notarial Rules. x x x. Accordingly, he recommended that Basilio’s notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked; he be disqualified from obtaining a notarial commission for a period of one (1) year and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.“

 

Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation and submitted the same to the Supreme Court, which was then presented with the sole issue of “whether or not the IBP correctly found Basilio liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.”

 

At the outset, the Court said that “(t)he act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.”

The Court then examined the records and stated that Basilio failed “to properly (identify) the person/s who signed” the Joint Affidavit. The Court added that his “claim that he verified the identities of the affiants through their respective SSS identification cards and driver’s licenses cannot be given any credence considering the ostensible lack of their details on the face of the certificate. Neither was he able to provide the fact of identification in any way. On the other hand, it has been established that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already dead when he notarized the aforesaid document. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature and seal on an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate.”

The Court said that “Basilio violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules which prohibits the notarization of a document if the person involved is not personally known to the notary public or has not identified himself through competent evidence of identity: x x x.”

 

The Court also stated that “Basilio himself admitted that he failed to record his notarial act on the Joint Affidavit in his notarial register, contrary to Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, x x x.”

The Court explained that:

“Since the notarial register is a record of the notary public’s official acts, he is charged with recording therein the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records, doubt as to its nature arises so that the alleged notarized document cannot be considered a public document. Considering the evidentiary value given to the notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial register is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not, as in this case.”

The Court, however, said that Basilio’s failure “to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, and to retain a copy thereof for his own records, the requirement therefor, as stated under Section 2 (h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, applies only to instruments acknowledged before the notary public. Documents like the Joint Affidavit which contain a jurat and not an acknowledgment are not required to be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. Hence, there should be no administrative infraction on this score.”

But Basilio’s violations of the Notarial Rules “are grave enough to warrant sanctions from the Court.”

The Court explained that “(a) notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. In line with this mandate, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. By failing in this regard, the notary public permits a falsehood which does not only transgress the Notarial Rules but also Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Verily, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; and it is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.”

The Court added that “Basilio’s failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. x x x.”

The Court then increased the penalty recommended by the IBP. Thus:

“x x x. Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year. (Emphasis supplied)”

The Supreme Court concluded that that “Atty. Christopher A. Basilio (is) GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.”