A.C. No. 7169 March 11, 2019
Spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita, Complainants vs. Atty. Allan Latras, Respondent

FACTS

The complainants, Spouses Zialcita, obtained a loan from Ester Servacio, secured by a notarized Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over their property. They alleged that Servacio, in conspiracy with Atty. Allan Latras, fraudulently substituted the first page of this deed with a Deed of Absolute Sale for a much lower amount. They further contended that Atty. Latras, acting as Servacio’s legal counsel and notary public, notarized this absolute sale without their personal knowledge and appearance before him.
In his defense, Atty. Latras denied the page substitution, arguing the burden of proof lay with the complainants. He admitted notarizing the deed but claimed that Ray Zialcita requested the dispensation of their personal appearance, assuring him they would appear later. He asserted that the spouses’ affirmation of the document’s contents constituted substantial compliance with notarial rules.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Allan Latras is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Latras is administratively liable. The Court upheld the modified resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, which revoked his notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2(b), mandate the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public at the time of notarization. This requirement is fundamental, as it allows the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and the voluntariness of the execution. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routinary act but one invested with public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit.
Atty. Latras’s admission that he notarized the document without the spouses’ personal appearance constituted a clear violation. His defense of substantial compliance—relying on a phone conversation and the presence of witnesses—was untenable. The personal appearance requirement is absolute and cannot be substituted. A notary public must exercise utmost diligence and cannot avoid responsibility by claiming to have followed a client’s instructions to bypass this mandatory procedure.
Regarding the allegation of fraudulent page substitution, the Court found that the complainants failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to substantiate this claim of conspiracy. Thus, the liability is based solely on the violation of notarial rules concerning personal appearance. The penalty imposed is consistent with precedents for similar infractions, serving to uphold the integrity of the notarial system.