Basic Legal Ethics

2nd Sem, AY2019-2020

Atty. Carlo Angelito M. Ilano

Home exercise No. 3

1. Harry Henyo entered into a contract of sale over his car with Jerry Maya. Harry approached his
nephew, Atty. Juan Pedro, and asked him if he could have their deed of sale notarized before a
notary public since he and Jerry were both busy at that time. He told Atty. Juan Pedro that since
the latter knows them both, he could just bring their I.D. and show it to the notary public as proof
of identities of the parties. Is this legally permissible?

Answer:

No, it is not legally permissible.

Section 2(b)(1) Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a person shall not
perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not in
the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization. It is a standing rule in Philippine
jurisprudence as well that the Court expressly prohibits notaries public from engaging in these
kinds of acts unbecoming of a notary since this duty is imbued with public interest. In the case of
Linco vs Lacebal, the Supreme Court held that a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

In this case, although Atty. Juan Pedro knows both the parties personally, this is not a justification
for knowingly notarizing the deed of sale as the law strictly orders that the parties must be
physically present before the notary when signing a notarized document.

Therefore, what Atty. Juan Pedro did is not legally permissible.

2. Atty. Juan Pedro was recently admitted to the Bar and is applying for a job. His friend informed
him of a vacancy in one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court so he personally
submitted his letter of application and curriculum vitae. He successfully landed the court attorney
position and was asked to complete all the documentary requirements, one of which is a Personal
Data Sheet (PDS). On the last day to submit the requirements, he forgot to have his PDS
notarized so he rushed to Atty. Martin Mariano, a notary public he personally knows and has an
office near the Supreme Court. Atty. Mariano was absent but his secretary, who is also a lawyer,
was there to notarize on his behalf. Afraid that he might miss the deadline for submitting the
requirements, Atty. Juan Pedro let Atty. Mariano notarize his PDS. Is the notarization valid,
considering Atty. Mariano was commissioned to notarize and personally knows Atty. Juan
Pedro?

Answer:

No, the notarization is still not valid.

 Section 1(c), Rule VII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice expressly provides that in
notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall affix his signature only at the
time the notarial act is performed. What the provision presupposes is that the notary public must
be physically present at the time of notarization in order to affix his signature in the document.
Therefore, although the secretary is a lawyer as well or may be a notary public, the fact is he
notarized the document on Atty. Mariano’s behalf, which is expressly prohibited by the Rules,
which would make the authority of the notary public invalid.

Therefore, the notarization is still invalid.

3. It is settled in jurisprudence that a notarized document carries great evidentiary weight and enjoys
the presumption of regularity. Do you think this principle should still be applied given the
numerous cases involving erring notaries public?

Answer:

Yes, I think the principle should still be applied. Although our registered notaries seem to clearly
disregard and ignore the rules on notarial practice as can be observed from numerous cases
involving blatant violations of the notarial rules by our notaries public, we should still be careful
in reversing established doctrines because it could lead to undesired results. One of the effects I
can think of in removing the presumption of regularity of notarized documents is that it would
hamper the administration of justice, because the courts would then require parties to prove the
admissibility of public documents which would lead to a possibly substantial delay in the
disposition of cases and dockets. I still think that the way to go is giving notaries public sanctions
and penalties, and give out harsher penalties in repeat offenses, which could ultimately lead to
their reformation as notaries public.