G.R. No. A.C. No. 10450, July 30, 2014
Emerita B. Mahilum, Complainant, vs. Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emerita B. Mahilum filed an administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama, a commissioned notary public, for notarizing a “Deed of Donation” dated February 7, 2006, on May 24, 2006, in the absence of one of the affiants, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson. The deed involved a donation from Rodolfo Mahilum (complainant’s estranged husband) to their daughter, Jennifer. The complainant asserted that Jennifer could not have personally appeared before the respondent on either date, as she was in the United States during 2006. She submitted a Bureau of Immigration certification showing Jennifer’s travel records, which indicated no entry into the Philippines in 2006. The respondent claimed that all parties, including Jennifer, were physically present during the notarization, citing his acquaintance with Rodolfo and Rodolfo’s introduction of Jennifer. He argued the complaint was part of a vendetta. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Grievance Committee found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence in verifying identities, as the immigration records conclusively showed Jennifer was not in the Philippines in 2006. The IBP Board of Governors recommended revocation of his notarial commission and a two-year disqualification. The respondent moved for reconsideration, citing his long unblemished record, lack of financial gain, and remorse, but the IBP denied his motion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the affiants.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court upheld the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that the Bureau of Immigration certification conclusively established Jennifer’s absence from the Philippines in 2006, rebutting the respondent’s claims. The Court highlighted that under Section 1 of the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103) and Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, a notary public must ensure the affiant’s personal presence and verify identity through competent evidence. The respondent’s actions were deemed not merely careless but deliberate, as he notarized the document despite Jennifer’s confirmed absence, misleading the public by attesting to her personal appearance. This contravened Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits dishonest or deceitful conduct. The Court imposed the penalty of revocation of his incumbent notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, with a warning for future offenses. The decision was to be circulated to relevant legal bodies for guidance.