THE Supreme Court (SC) ruled that lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of their notarial commission.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division dismissed the administrative complaint against Attys. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr., Editha P. Talaboc, and Mark S. Oliveros (respondents) due to lack of proof that they allowed the unauthorized use of their notarial signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers for a fee.
The administrative complaint stemmed from the alleged notarization of documents related to criminal cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the Malampaya Fund scandal. The documents were supposedly notarized using the respondents’ signatures, notarial seals, and registers – allegedly forged by Ben Hur Luy.
The Notarial Practice Rules prohibits notaries from notarizing documents if the signatory is not present and properly identified. The Ombudsman alleged that the respondents allowed others to misuse their notarial registers, stamps, and seals in exchange for money and recommended disciplinary action. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
The IBP found the respondents guilty of violating notarial rules and recommended a six-month suspension from law practice, the revocation of their notarial commissions, and a two-year disqualification from serving as notaries public.
The SC overturned this ruling, stating there was no concrete proof that the respondents willingly allowed the misuse of their notarial registers, stamps, and seals. It noted several missing elements in the documents, including the respondents’ official notarial details, such as their notarial commission serial numbers, office addresses, IBP chapters, and Professional Tax Receipt numbers. There were also irregularities in the notarial certificates regarding the validity of their notarial commissions.
“Given these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that respondents were negligent in safekeeping their notarial details. There is nothing preventing others from using respondents’ names and requesting that notarial stamps and notarial seals be made using their names. Notaries are not immune from identity theft.”
Although cleared of notarial violations, the SC sanctioned Attys. Talaboc and Oliveros for failing to respond to the IBP proceedings
The SC also ordered the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to remind all concerned judges to comply with OCA Circular No. 291-2023, which directs them to create their own Task Force Honesto Notario to monitor notaries public within their respective jurisdictions. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
