A.C. No. 6649; June 21, 2005
Marina C. Gonzales, complainant, vs. Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marina C. Gonzales filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Calixto B. Ramos for misconduct in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 27, 1996, wherein she and her husband allegedly sold a property to spouses Henry and Mila Gatus. The complainant maintained that she and her husband never appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the deed. The notarization led to the cancellation of their title and the issuance of a new one in favor of the buyers.
Respondent admitted he prepared a new deed after finding the original lacked a technical description. He claimed the husband, Francisco Gonzales, and the buyers signed in his presence. He instructed Francisco to bring his wife to sign, but Francisco later returned with the deed already bearing Marina’s signature. Respondent, knowing the couple personally and after comparing signatures with his files, notarized the document despite Marina’s absence. During proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), respondent conceded the complainant never personally appeared before him.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Calixto B. Ramos violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of one of the signatories.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must observe utmost care, and the law explicitly requires the personal appearance of the parties executing the document to attest to its truth and authenticity. By notarizing the deed despite the complainant’s absence, respondent failed in his duty to verify the genuineness of the signature and the voluntariness of the execution. This act breached the Notarial Law and constituted unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ modified recommendation but imposed a stiffer penalty consistent with jurisprudence for such serious infractions. Respondent’s notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment for two years. Additionally, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a warning against repetition. The penalty underscores the gravity of a notary public’s duties and the need to preserve public confidence in notarized documents.