G.R. No. A.C. No. 12455. November 5, 2019
LEDESMA D. SANCHEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. CARLITO R. INTON, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ledesma D. Sanchez filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Carlito R. Inton for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Sanchez alleged that on September 15, 2016, respondent notarized a “Kontrata ng Kasunduan” purportedly executed by her, but she denied appearing before him on that date, claiming she was in Quezon City. She presented an affidavit from her employee to corroborate her whereabouts. Sanchez further alleged that on February 10, 2017, when she presented an “Acknowledgment of Legal Obligation With Promissory Note” for notarization, respondent’s secretaries, acting on his behalf, did not verify the signatory’s identity, immediately requested payment, and affixed respondent’s signature on the document.
In his Answer, respondent admitted notarizing the “Kasunduan” on September 15, 2016, but argued that Sanchez had admitted this fact during a preliminary investigation in a related case. Regarding the “Acknowledgment,” respondent denied notarizing it, claiming it did not appear in his notarial book. He appealed for leniency due to his age and health. Respondent submitted affidavits from his secretaries in support of his defense.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for failing to comply with the Notarial Rules. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty, recommending the revocation of his notarial commission (if subsisting) and disqualification from appointment as a notary public for one year.

ISSUE

Whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings with modifications. The Court found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Rules on two grounds:
1. Failure to Verify Identity and Incomplete Notarial Certificate: In notarizing the “Kasunduan,” respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Sanchez through competent evidence of identity as required by Sections 2(b) and 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules. The notarial certificate on the document was incomplete, as it lacked any mention of the parties’ competent evidence of identity, violating Section 5(b), Rule IV. The Court emphasized that a notary public must ensure the physical presence of the affiant and verify their identity to uphold the integrity of notarized documents.
2. Delegation of Notarial Acts: Respondent allowed his secretaries to perform notarial acts on his behalf, including affixing his signature to the “Acknowledgment” on February 10, 2017. This violated Section 1, Rule VII of the Notarial Rules, which requires a notary public to personally perform notarial acts and sign the certificate. The Court held that a notarial commission is personal and cannot be delegated.
The Court stressed that notarization is invested with public interest, and notaries must observe their duties with utmost care. A breach of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 1 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (requiring lawyers to observe honesty and good faith).
Considering respondent’s prior administrative sanction (reprimand) in a separate case, the Court imposed a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, effective immediately, and revoked his current notarial commission, if any. He was also sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.