G.R. No. A.C. No. 3324 February 9, 2000
PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., complainants, vs. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainants filed an administrative case against Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. for alleged dishonesty and lack of care in his duties as a notary public. The complaint arose from a “Motion to Dismiss With Answer” filed in an SEC case, which was prepared and notarized by respondent. The verification of the pleading indicated it was subscribed and sworn to by several individuals, including Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan, and Alejandro Bofetiado. Complainants alleged that the signature for Paterno Diaz was actually affixed by a certain Lilian Diaz, and that the signatures for Pagunsan and Bofetiado were signed by Atty. Sabate himself, who then notarized the document. They contended this made it appear the affiants personally appeared before him when they did not.
In his defense, respondent argued he acted in good faith and with authorization. He claimed Lilian Diaz was authorized by her husband, Paterno Diaz, and that he signed for Pagunsan and Bofetiado as their counsel and based on their authority, citing the distance of their residences and the need to meet reglementary periods. He asserted his signature was preceded by the word “By” to indicate representation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. violated his duties as a notary public by notarizing a verification where the affiants did not personally appear before him and where he himself was a signatory.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of a notary public’s duties under the Notarial Law. The law requires that the person acknowledging an instrument must personally appear before the notary public to attest to the truth and voluntariness of the execution. This personal appearance is indispensable; the act of acknowledgment cannot be delegated to a representative. By notarizing a document where three affiants were not physically present, respondent failed in this fundamental duty.
Furthermore, respondent compounded his violation by notarizing an instrument to which he was himself a signatory. A notary public must be an impartial witness. Allowing a notary to notarize his own signature creates a conflict of interest, as he becomes an interested party to the instrument he is supposed to authenticate impartially. This defeats the very purpose of notarization, which is to prevent fraud and ensure the authenticity of documents. The Court rejected his excuses of good faith, urgency, and alleged authorizations. The obligations of a notary public, a public office impressed with public interest, are strict and cannot be circumvented by convenience or representation. Consequently, the Court suspended him from his commission as a notary public for one year.