G.R. No. 12011 EN BANC June 26, 2018
A.C. No. 12011 NICANOR D. TRIOL, Complainant vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Nicanor D. Triol and his sister were co-owners of a parcel of land in Quezon City. He discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 11, 2011, purportedly conveying the property to a buyer, was notarized by respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. Complainant alleged that neither he nor his sister, who was abroad, authorized the sale, personally appeared before the notary, or consented to the document. He further claimed the community tax certificates used in the deed were fake, prompting him to file this disbarment complaint.
In his defense, respondent denied any knowledge of the deed’s execution and notarization. He asserted his signature thereon was a forgery, maintaining he would never notarize a document without the personal appearance of the signatories. He also claimed he could not have notarized it as he was not a commissioned notary public for Quezon City in 2011. The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal, finding respondent’s specimen signature differed from the one on the deed. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this, finding respondent liable and recommending a two-year suspension from law practice and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the notarization of the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ finding of liability. The Court emphasized the profound public interest vested in notarization, which converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must ensure the signatories personally appear before him at the time of notarization and are either personally known or identified through competent evidence. This requirement is fundamental to verifying the genuineness of signatures and the voluntariness of the act.
The Court found respondent’s defenses unsubstantiated. While he submitted a specimen signature, he failed to authenticate it by comparing it to his signature in official records like the Office of the Clerk of Court. Consequently, the probative value of the notarized deed stood. Certifications from the Clerk of Court stating he had no notarial commission in Quezon City for 2011 and 2012 were deemed insufficient to absolve him, as the notarization itself indicated a failure to uphold his duties. By notarizing a document without the requisite personal appearance, respondent violated the Notarial Rules. This breach concomitantly constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (prohibiting doing any falsehood). The Court thus imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, with a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.