G.R. No. A.C. No. 6249; October 14, 2004
Social Security Commission, complainant, vs. Atty. Napoleon Corral, respondent.

FACTS

The Social Security Commission filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Napoleon Corral for preparing, notarizing, and filing three separate complaints with the SSS Regional Office in Bacolod City on behalf of individuals who did not personally appear before him. The first two complaints, filed in 1986 and 1987, were allegedly verified by Hermogenes Bareno and Domingo Panadero, respectively. Investigation revealed both individuals had died years before the purported verifications. A supplemental complaint alleged a third instance in 1990 involving Catalino de la Cruz, who submitted an affidavit stating he had never been to Bacolod City to verify a complaint and did not know the respondent.
In his defense, Atty. Corral argued he could not be faulted as he relied on the identification documents presented by the impostors, such as an SSS card or form, claiming this satisfied his duty. He contended the complaints were simple actions for unpaid SSS premiums, justifying his limited verification. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, after investigation, recommended his disbarment for violating his duties as a lawyer and notary public.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Napoleon Corral should be held administratively liable for misconduct in the performance of his notarial and professional duties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and held Atty. Corral administratively liable. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and solemn nature of notarial duties under Public Act No. 2103 and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The law explicitly requires the physical presence of the document signatory before the notary public, who must certify the signatory’s identity and voluntary execution. The respondent certified the personal appearance of Bareno, Panadero, and de la Cruz when, in fact, they were either deceased or demonstrably absent. His reliance on presented identification was grossly insufficient and negligent.
The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine formality but a public function imbued with public interest, as notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity and authenticity. By failing to exercise utmost diligence to verify identities—such as by examining the presented documents, which in one case was merely a beneficiary form not proving the bearer’s identity—the respondent undermined this vital legal process. His actions constituted a breach of Rule 1.01, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. His indifference demonstrated unfitness for the legal profession. Consequently, the Court indefinitely suspended his notarial commission and directed him to show cause why he should not be disbarred.