A.C. No. 2611. November 15, 2000.
FELY E. CORONADO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO FELONGCO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fely E. Coronado charged respondent Atty. Ernesto Felongco with misconduct for notarizing a Deed of Promise to Sell purportedly signed by her deceased mother, Fe Vda. de Esteva. The complainant alleged that the respondent connived with her brother, Pacifico Esteva, Jr., to notarize the document despite their mother being illiterate, causing family dissension over inheritance. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming the deceased appeared before him on September 2, 1982, to acknowledge her signature. However, as she had forgotten her residence certificate, the notarization was postponed.
The respondent stated that on September 10, 1982, Florenda Faraon, the vendee, presented the deceased’s residence certificate, informing him that Esteva was hospitalized and could not appear. Relying on this representation and unaware that Esteva had actually died on September 6, 1982, the respondent proceeded to notarize the document. Affidavits from Faraon and Pacifico corroborated the respondent’s account, explaining the deceased’s prior appearance and the failure to disclose her death due to fear of non-payment of the balance.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Ernesto Felongco violated the Notarial Law and committed misconduct in notarizing the Deed of Promise to Sell.

RULING

Yes, the respondent violated the Notarial Law and is guilty of misconduct. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (the Notarial Law) explicitly requires that the person acknowledging an instrument must personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization. The notary must certify the acknowledging party’s identity and voluntary execution of the document. In this case, the acknowledgment clause stated that Fe Esteva personally appeared on September 10, 1982. However, the Certificate of Death conclusively established that she had died on September 6, 1982. Therefore, her purported appearance was legally impossible, constituting a clear violation of the mandatory personal presence requirement.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act; it converts a private document into a public instrument, affording it prima facie evidence of authenticity and imposing full faith and credit upon its face. Notaries public must, therefore, exercise utmost care in performing their duties to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. While the Court considered mitigating circumstances—the respondent’s prior interaction with the deceased, his lack of knowledge of her death due to the vendee’s misrepresentation, his expression of remorse, and this being his first offense—these do not absolve him of liability for negligence in failing to ensure the principal party’s actual presence. Consequently, the Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent Atty. Ernesto Felongco from his commission as a Notary Public for a period of two months, with a stern warning for any future infraction.