G.R. No. 8249 September 2, 2019
Marciano A. Sambile and Lerma M. Sambile, Complainants, vs. Atty. Renato A. Ignacio, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Marciano and Lerma Sambile filed a verified complaint for disciplinary action against Atty. Renato A. Ignacio for notarizing a Deed of Donation on February 15, 2002, without their personal appearance. They alleged that Remedios Sambile, Marciano’s adoptive mother, came to their house during their daughter’s birthday party, asked them to sign a document, and later provided them a copy of the notarized Deed of Donation. They were surprised when a complaint for annulment of the deed was later filed against them, alleging falsification because Herminio Sambile (Remedios’s husband and Marciano’s adoptive father), whose signature appeared on the deed, had already died in 1987. Complainants asserted they never appeared before respondent notary public. As proof, they submitted a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cavite City stating that a copy of the subject Deed of Donation was not among the notarial documents submitted by respondent for 2002. Respondent failed to appear in the mandatory conferences before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline and did not file his position paper despite due notice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Renato A. Ignacio should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the complainants.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that respondent notarized the Deed of Donation despite the complainants’ non-appearance. Respondent was given ample opportunity to refute the allegations but chose to ignore the proceedings. The Certification from the Clerk of Court, coupled with the fact that a signatory (Herminio Sambile) had been dead for years before the notarization, clearly showed the notarization was dubious. Notarization is not a routinary act but invested with public interest; a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. At the time of the notarization in 2002, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not yet in effect. However, respondent’s act of notarizing the deed without the required presence of the complainants violated Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 (the old Notarial Law) and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, for violating Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court SUSPENDS respondent Atty. Renato A. Ignacio from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his notarial commission, if still extant; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. Atty. Ignacio is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.