A.C. No. 7350; February 18, 2013
Patrocinio V. Agbulos, Complainant, vs. Atty. Roseller A. Viray, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Patrocinio V. Agbulos filed a disciplinary case against Atty. Roseller A. Viray for allegedly notarizing an “Affidavit of Non-Tenancy” in violation of the Notarial Law. Agbulos denied executing the affidavit, claiming the signature and the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) presented were forgeries, with the CTC belonging to another individual. She asserted she never personally appeared before Viray for the notarization. The affidavit was used by Viray’s client, Rolando Dollente, to facilitate the illegal transfer of a property registered in Agbulos’s name.
In his defense, Atty. Viray admitted to preparing and notarizing the document upon Dollente’s assurance that it was personally signed by Agbulos and that the CTC was hers. He claimed good faith. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that Viray notarized the document without the affiant’s personal presence and based only on a CTC, which was insufficient proof of identity. The IBP Board of Governors initially suspended him from the practice of law for one month, later modifying this to include a six-month suspension as a Notary Public.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Roseller A. Viray violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the affiant’s personal appearance and without requiring competent evidence of identity.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Viray guilty and imposed stricter penalties. The legal logic centers on the mandatory duties of a notary public as a public officer. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 2(b), Rule IV, unequivocally require the personal appearance of the signatory at the time of notarization. Furthermore, Section 12, Rule II, defines “competent evidence of identity” as at least one current identification document with a photograph and signature, or the oath of credible witnesses. A Community Tax Certificate alone does not satisfy this standard.
Viray’s admission that he relied solely on his client’s assurance and accepted a CTC constituted a gross violation of these foundational rules. By notarizing without the complainant’s presence, he failed in his duty to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the execution was the affiant’s free act. This failure facilitated the use of a falsified document to the detriment of the complainant. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but imbues a document with public faith; thus, notaries must exercise utmost care. Given the seriousness of the breach, which undermines the integrity of notarial acts, the Court modified the IBP’s penalty. Atty. Viray was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.