A.C. No. 11396. June 20, 2018
Franco B. Gonzales, Complainant, vs. Atty. Danilo B. Bañares, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Franco B. Gonzales filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Danilo B. Bañares for violating notarial rules. Gonzales alleged that on September 23, 2010, Atty. Bañares notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale covering three parcels of land purportedly executed by his mother, Lilia Gonzales, as seller. The document contained the name and signature of his father, Rodolfo Gonzales, despite Rodolfo being in Irosin, Sorsogon on that date. Gonzales’s own name and signature also appeared as an instrumental witness, though he claimed he was absent. He maintained that Bañares, knowing these facts, proceeded with the notarization.
Atty. Bañares denied the accusations. He asserted that Gonzales was present as a witness and that Rodolfo had “pre-signed” the document to manifest his conformity as the seller’s husband, not as a co-owner. He supported his defense with affidavits, including one from Lilia Gonzales. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, modifying the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation, resolved to impose a six-month suspension from law practice, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Danilo B. Bañares is administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of one of the signatories before him.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Danilo B. Bañares is administratively liable. The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s findings and penalty. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine; it is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument and ensuring its authenticity. 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 truthfulness. This requirement allows the notary to verify the genuineness of signatures and ascertain that the execution is the party’s free act.
The evidence, including Bañares’s own admission that Rodolfo Gonzales merely “pre-signed” the document, conclusively showed that Rodolfo was not physically present before Bañares on September 23, 2010. This directly contradicted the certification in the Acknowledgment portion of the Deed, which stated that Rodolfo “personally appeared.” By notarizing the document despite this absence, Bañares violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule II, Section 1, which mandates the affiant’s personal appearance. His actions compromised the integrity of the notarial process and betrayed the trust reposed in a notary public. The Court found him liable for misconduct and imposed the recommended penalties to uphold the sanctity of notarization and the legal profession.