A.C. No. 6634; August 23, 2007
Tan Tiong Bio a.k.a. Henry Tan, Complainant, vs. Atty. Renato L. Gonzales, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Henry Tan purchased a lot from Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI). The corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale (Deed 1108) was notarized by respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales, who was then the corporate counsel of FEPI and a commissioned notary public for Quezon City. During a subsequent estafa case filed by Tan, the vendor’s authorized signatory, Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc, executed a counter-affidavit stating she and Tan had never personally met or transacted together. She admitted they signed the deed at different times and places, a common practice for the corporation.
Tan initiated this disbarment case, alleging respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing Deed 1108 without requiring the personal appearance and simultaneous acknowledgment of the parties before him. In his answer, respondent was evasive but implied the parties appeared before him at different times, arguing the law did not require simultaneous presence. During proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, the parties stipulated that the deed was notarized in Pasig City, outside respondent’s Quezon City commission, and that the signatories were not present at the same time during notarization.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales should be held administratively liable for his actions as a notary public.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of two clear violations. First, he notarized the document in Pasig City, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission for Quezon City. This is a direct violation of the Notarial Law. Second, he failed in his fundamental duty as a notary public to require the personal presence of the signatories at the time of notarization. The stipulation of facts confirmed the parties did not appear before him simultaneously. The Court emphasized that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories are physically present to attest to the truthfulness of its contents and to acknowledge their signatures voluntarily. Respondent’s practice of allowing separate acknowledgments defeated the very purpose of notarization, which is to authenticate documents and prevent fraud.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim of laches was unavailing as disbarment cases involve public interest. His argument that simultaneous presence was not required misinterpreted the law; the requirement is for each signatory to personally appear before the notary at the time of acknowledgment, which logically cannot be fulfilled if they appear at different times for a single document. For these willful violations, which constitute deceit and malpractice, the Court imposed a penalty more severe than the IBP’s recommendation. Respondent is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.