Everyone’s responsibility

Ian Alfredo Magno

YOU reach out for the wallet in your pocket. And you can’t seem to find it.  Suddenly, you realize you don’t have it with you. Then you wonder where you last put it, or that it must have been misplaced, or worse, stolen. The next thing that happens, is you find yourself sighing “di bale nang mawala ang pera, mabalik lang ang lisensya (o mga ID) ko.”

In instances such as this, we routinely execute the usual “affidavit of loss” for submission to a given agency or office to have our lost IDs replaced. And more often than not, a host of agencies insist that the document be notarized as a matter of policy.

This is just one among the modern realities where we are confronted with the perennial requisite of notarization.  Hence, nowadays, notarization is virtually a way of life.  A lot of us may have, in fact, become accustomed to it.  Yet, as ordinary it may seem, notarization is fraught with gargantuan connotations, which demand a careful regard of the Rules, at the least.  Hence, in the case of Gonzales vs. Ramos A.C. No. 6649 dated 21 June 2005, the Supreme Court held: “Such act is no empty gesture…When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence.”

The Supreme Court further held: “Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public… is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery… A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”

Therefore, items (a) and (b) of Section 1, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, through the Executive Judge, impose the revocation of a lawyer’s notarial commission or other appropriate administrative sanctions respectively, for certain violations to wit:

“SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions.

(a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:

1. fails to keep a notarial register
2. fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts
3. fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following
4. fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission
5. fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge
6. fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge
7. fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act
8. fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence
9. executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV
10. knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and
11. commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.”

Lest a non-lawyer might say that they are spared hereof, that is not actually true. With particular reference to item no. 7 above, it implies a minimal but critical responsibility required of the public vis-à-vis the nuances of a notarial act, particularly the principal whose act is the subject of notarization–that is personal appearance.

In the case of Spouses Domingo vs. Reed G.R. No. 157701 dated 9 December 2005, the Supreme Court pronounced, thus: “A document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature.”

Moreover, it is worth noting that the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was crafted to promote, serve and protect public interest.  Thus, the same Law in Section 1, Rule XII thereof provides for sanctions against unscrupulous members of the public, to wit:

“SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. – The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:

(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public

(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public and

(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct.”

Apparently, the notary public and the public in general–whose interest is the primordial concern–both share the same duty of keeping intact the integrity and office of a notarial act. More or less, it is quite settled that indeed notarization is everyone’s responsibility.

(Atty. Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an associate at Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and is deputy legal officer at Philhealth.)