A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC2004 Rules on Notarial PracticeRESOLUTIONActing on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 submitted by the Sub-Committee for the Study, Drafting and Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries Public and the Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the Committees on Revision of the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar Matters, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, with modifications, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICERULE IIMPLEMENTATIONSECTION 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.SEC. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the following purposes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;.(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public...SEC. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.RULE IIDEFINITIONSSECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - Acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;.(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and -.(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:..(a) appears in person before the notary public;.(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and.(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.SEC. 3. Commission. - Commission refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the written evidence of the authority.SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - Copy Certification refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable;(b) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;(c) compares the instrument or document with the copy; and(d) determines that the copy is accurate and complete.SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - Notarial Register refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary public...SEC. 6. Jurat. - Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;.(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - Notarial Act and Notarization refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under these Rules.SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. - Notarial Certificate refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules...SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - Notary Public and Notary refer to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules.cralawSEC. 10. Principal. - Principal refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization...SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term regular place of work or business refers to a stationary office in the city or province wherein the notary public renders legal and notarial services...SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or.(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.SEC. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - Official seal or Seal refers to a device for affixing a mark, image or impression on all papers officially signed by the notary public conforming the requisites prescribed by these Rules.SEC. 14. Signature Witnessing. - The term signature witnessing refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion:..(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and.(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public.SEC. 15. Court. - Court refers to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.SEC. 16. Petitioner. - Petitioner refers to a person who applies for a notarial commission.cralawSEC. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. - Office of the Court Administrator refers to the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.cralawSEC. 18. Executive Judge. - Executive Judge refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of a city or province who issues a notarial commission.cralawSEC. 19. Vendor. - Vendor under these Rules refers to a seller of a notarial seal and shall include a wholesaler or retailer...SEC. 20. Manufacturer. - Manufacturer under these Rules refers to one who produces a notarial seal and shall include an engraver and seal maker...RULE IIICOMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules...To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;.(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;.(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;.(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, including the petitioner's date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP membership number;(b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission;(c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and(d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs.SEC. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a notarial commission shall pay the application fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court...SEC. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall grant the same if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) the petition is sufficient in form and substance;(b) the petitioner proves the allegations contained in the petition; and(c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Judge that he has read and fully understood these Rules.The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a commission and a Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the petitioner...SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. -(a) The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the hearing shall be conducted and posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication shall be borne by the petitioner. The notice may include more than one petitioner.(b) The notice shall be substantially in the following form:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryNOTICE OF HEARINGNotice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for notarial commission of (name of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto, received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing.chanrobles virtual ..._____________________Executive JudgeSEC. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto. The opposition must be received by the Executive Judge before the date of the summary hearing...SEC. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The commissioning of a notary public shall be in a formal order signed by the Executive Judge substantially in the following form:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________This is to certify that (name of notary public) of (regular place of work or business) in (city or province) was on this (date) day of (month) two thousand and (year) commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending the thirty-first day of December (year)..________________________Executive JudgeSEC. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall be valid for a period of three (3) months from date of issue, unless extended by the Executive Judge.A mark, image or impression of the seal that may be purchased by the notary public pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to the Executive Judge for approval prior to use.cralawSEC. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall substantially be in the following form:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________..CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATIONTO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL..This is to authorize (name of notary public) of (city or province) who was commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the thirty-first of December (year) to purchase a notarial seal.chanrobles virtual ...Issued this (day) of (month) (year).________________________Executive JudgeSEC. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every person commissioned as notary public shall have only one official seal of office in accordance with these Rules.SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court...SEC. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall keep and maintain a Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction which shall contain, among others, the dates of issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial commissions, and the resignation or death of notaries public. The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the Court Administrator information and data recorded in the register of notaries public. The Office of the Court Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete and updated database of such records...SEC. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his commission within forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression of the seal of the notary public shall be attached to the application.cralawFailure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the notary public in the register of notaries public.cralawThe notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in accordance with these Rules...SEC. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee mentioned in Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an application for the renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state the reasons therefor.cralawRULE IVPOWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLICSECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) acknowledgments;(2) oaths and affirmations;(3) jurats;.(4) signature witnessings;(5) copy certifications; and(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and.(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;(4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses); and(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:..(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules...SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;.(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree...SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;(b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will.SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not:..(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete...SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall not notarize:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or.(b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification.RULE VFEES OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For performing a notarial act, a notary public may charge the maximum feeas prescribed by the Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part..SEC. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary public may charge travel fees and expenses separate and apart from the notarial fees prescribed in the preceding section when traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary public and the person requesting the notarial act agree prior to the travel.cralawSEC. 3. Prohibited Fees. No fee or compensation of any kind, except those expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be collected or received for any notarial service.cralawSEC. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary public shall not require payment of any fees specified herein prior to the performance of a notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon...Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary public prior to the performance of a notarial act are not subject to refund if the notary public had already traveled but failed to complete in whole or in part the notarial act for reasons beyond his control and without negligence on his part.cralawSEC. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for services rendered...A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial fees.cralawRULE VINOTARIAL REGISTERSECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages...The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists.cralawFor purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Court Administrator...(b) A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time.cralawSEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:..(1) the entry number and page number;.(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;(3) the type of notarial act;.(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;(5) the name and address of each principal;.(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is notpersonally known to the notary;.(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity;(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded.cralaw(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.cralaw(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.cralaw(f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same.cralaw(g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact.cralaw(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required.cralawSEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by each:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) principal;(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign.SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, provided;(1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven through competent evidence of identity as defined in these Rules;(2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a separate, dated entry;(3) the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and(4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him.(b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order.(c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein.cralawSEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.cralaw(b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive Judge.cralawSEC. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The notary public shall supply a certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees.cralawRULE VIISIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Official Signature. In notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the notary's commission;.(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and(c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province and the word Philippines and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the writing appears.(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is performed and shall be clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of the instrument or document notarized...(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him...(d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or other otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image, the notary public, after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency, shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.cralaw(e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary public, or the revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall be destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event that the missing, lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the notary public to the Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death of the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall have the duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge.cralawSEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and photographically reproducible mark, image or impression of the official seal beside his signature on the notarial certificate of a paper instrument or document.cralawSEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals may not sell said product without a written authorization from the Executive Judge.cralaw(b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the Executive Judge may issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals after verification and investigation of the latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee in the amount of PhP 4,000 for the vendor and PhP 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.cralaw(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the date of its issuance and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar period upon payment of the authorization fee mentioned in the preceding paragraph.cralaw(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon submission of a certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge. A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge.cralaw(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.cralaw(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or impression of the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the completed Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer for four (4) years after the sale.cralaw(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of name issued by the Executive Judge.cralawRULE VIIINOTARIAL CERTIFICATESSECTION 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The notarial form used for any notarial instrument or document shall conform to all the requisites prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all other provisions of issuances by the Supreme Court and in applicable laws...SEC. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. The notarial certificate shall include the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;(b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public;(c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and(d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.RULE IXCERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLICSECTION 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act. - A certificate of authority evidencing the authenticity of the official seal and signature of a notary public shall be issued by the Executive Judge upon request in substantially the following form:..CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACTI, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive Judge), certify that (name of notary public), the person named in the seal and signature on the attached document, is a Notary Public in and for the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic of the Philippines and authorized to act as such at the time of the document's notarization.chanrobles virtual ...IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my signature and seal of this office this (date) day of (month) (year).chanro

A.C. No. 10450 July 30, 2014EMERITA B. MAHILUM,Complainant,vs.ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA,Respondent.R E S O L U T I O NREYES,J.:This administrative complaint1filed by Emerita B. Mahilum (complainant) seeks the disbarment of Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama (respondent), a commissioned notary public and practicing lawyer in San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, for notarizing a 'Deed of Donation' in the absence of or Le of the affiants.The complainant averred that on May 24, 2006, the respondent notarized a Deed of Donation executed by her estranged husband, Rodolfo (Rodolfo) Mahilum as donor, and their common daughter, Jennifer Mahilum-Sorenson (Jennifer) as donee, pertaining to the donor's share of one-half portion over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-710712of the Registry of Deeds of Bacolod City.Attached to the complaint is a copy of the deed of donation dated February 7, 2006 bearing the signatures of Rodolfo and Jennifer, as well as the notarial seal and signature ofthe respondent on the acknowledgment portion attesting to the personal appearance of Rodolfo and Jennifer before him when the same was notarized on May 24, 2006.3According to the complainant,she has personal knowledge that Jennifer could not have personally appeared before the respondent on May 24, 2006 or even on February 7, 2006 because during those dates, she was in the United States of America (USA) working at the State Fund Office in California.In his Answer,4the respondent asserted that the donor, donee and instrumental witnesses to the donation were all physically present when the document was signed. He stated thathe is personally acquainted with Rodolfo and he had no reason to cast doubts upon him when he introduced his daughter Jennifer who came all the way from the USA to visit her father.The respondent further averred that the complainant has a long-running feud with Rodolfo and she and some of their common children are using this complaint as part ofher personal vendettaagainst Rodolfo who happens to be friendswith the respondent.The parties were summoned for mandatory conference before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Negros Occidental Chapter, whereby both of them undertook to present documentary evidence showing the actual whereabouts of Jennifer during the dates in question.The complainant submitted a Certification5from the Bureau of Immigration showing the arrival and departure records of Jennifer in the Philippines. Based thereon,Jennifer did not enter the Philippines in the year 2006. Her travel records closest to thatyear showed that she arrived in the Philippines on June 25, 2004 but departed a month later or on July 22, 2004. She again arrived in the Philippines onJune 24, 2007 and left on July 20, 2007. There were other various dates of her arrival in the country but the records did not reflect that she came to the Philippines in 2006. Despite opportunity to submitevidence rebutting the foregoing certification, the respondent failed to file any.6The only supporting evidence he proffered were the documents attached to his Answer showing the present marital status of the complainant that she is actually married to a certain George W. Cooper, a British Canadian; that on July 14, 1986 she filed for the dissolution of her marriage with Rodolfo before the Superior Court of California, County of Orangeand the same was granted on October 23, 1986. Likewise attached to his Answer is an Affidavit executed by Rodolfo attesting that Jennifer was physically present when she signed the deed of donation.7Report and Recommendation of the IBPIn its Resolution transmitted to the IBP national office on March 12, 2009,8the Grievance Committee of IBP Negros Occidental Chapter found that the respondent failed to exercise diligence in ascertaining the identity of the person who appeared before him as donee considering that based on official records, Jennifer never set foot in the Philippine soil at any time in the year 2006. The respondent failed to require competent proof of identification from the parties to the deed of donation as mandated by the Rules on Notarial Practice.On December 1, 2009, the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline adopted the foregoing findings and accordingly,recommended that the respondents notarial commission be revoked and that he be prohibited from being commissioned as a Notary Public for a period of two years.9The IBP Board of Governors adopted the above recommendation in a Resolution10dated May 15, 2011.The respondent moved for reconsideration11pleading for the modification of the penalty meted upon him on the ground that various factors does not render it commensurate with the offense charged. He stressed that the complainant never became his client neither was she involved in the execution of the deed of donation. There was also no claim whatsoever that Jennifers signature inthe deed of donation was forged or falsified. The respondent, further, asserted that he did not benefit financially from the notarization of the deed of donation and that the same did not cause any damage or injury to the complainant.The respondent also asserted that there was no need for him to require any proof of identity from Rodolfo since he was personally known to him having been his partner before the latter retired from law practice.He appealed for humanitarian consideration and cited that he has been a notary public for 35 years and this isthe first administrative case filed against him. He also rendered free notarial services to the members of the local Philippine National Police in San Carlos City as well as the personnel of the Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Courts of Calatrava in Negros Occidental. In the same motion, the respondent expressed remorse over his negligence and pledged to exercise diligence in discharging his duties as a notary public.In a Resolution12dated February 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the respondentsmotion for reconsideration.Ruling of the CourtThe Court agrees with and sustains the IBPs finding that the official record from the Bureau ofImmigration showing that Jennifer never traveled to the Philippines in the year 2006 substantially established that indeed she could not have personally appeared before the respondent when he notarized the deed of donation on May 24, 2006. Certainly, the conclusive import of the contents of such certification cannot be overcome by the respondents mere counter-allegations unsupported by any corroborative proof.Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, or the Notarial Law mandates that affiants must personally appear to the notary public, viz:Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.Corollary, under Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, a commissioned notary public is enjoined from performing a notarial act unless the affiant is: (1) in his presence at the time of the notarization; and(2) personally known to him or otherwise identified by him through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.The purpose of the rule was emphasized in Angeles v. Ibaez,13thus:The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act and deed.Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended toa private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.14(Citations omitted)The respondent is, without doubt, familiar with the above rules and duties, having been a notary public for 35 years. But he, nonetheless, failed to observe them.Contrary to the IBPs findingsthat such failure was due to carelessness, the Court finds and so holds that the respondent deliberately disregarded the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Notarial Law.A holistic examination of the records illustrates that the respondent has actually met Jennifer when she went home to visit the ailing Rodolfo. But this was before and definitely notduring the notarization of deed of donation because based on her travel records, she did not come to the Philippines in 2006. The respondent accommodated the notarization of the deed sansJennifers physical appearance before him on May 24, 2006 since he was personally acquainted with Rodolfo. Hence, he took the latters representation that Jennifer voluntarilyexecuted the deed as reliable and faithful. Even if we were to uphold such representation, however, the truth remains that Jennifer was not personally present to attest to the truthfulness of her acceptance of the donation as donee during notarization.Carelessness implies that the affiant was actually personally present and the notary public just forgot to verify her identity or that she was not personally known to her. Here, however, the affiant was not physically present during the notarization but the notary public nevertheless affixed his seal and signature attesting that the affiant "personally appeared" before him when in truth and in fact, she did not.To stress, "[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. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness ofthe signature of the affiant."15An act which contravenes the foregoing guidelines is in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 116of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law,17which the respondent culpablycommitted when he notarized the Deed of Donation in the absence of one of the affiants.It must be emphasized that the public and the courts accord conclusiveness of due execution in notarized documents.1wphi1By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent misled the public that Jennifer personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the deed when in fact she did not. Such misconduct can also usher in precariouslegal consequences should the deed of donation later on spawn court intervention.18Certainly, the respondent was remiss in performing his functions as a notary public for which the penalties imposed in Wilberto C. Talisic v. Atty. Primo R. Rinen19are appropriate.WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, his incumbent notarial commission is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for ONE (1) YEAR, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the respondents personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished tothe Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.SO ORDERED.A.M. No. MTJ141842 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 122491MTJ], February 24, 2014REX M. TUPAL,Complainant,v.JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO, BRANCH 5, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,Respondent.R E S O L U T I O NLEONEN,J.:Municipal trial court judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.

Rex M. Tupal filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law.1

Judge Remegio V. Rojo presides Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without the required marriage license. He instead notarized affidavits of cohabitation2and issued them to the contracting parties.3He notarized these affidavits on the day of the parties marriage.4These package marriages are allegedly common in Bacolod City.5

Rex annexed to his complaintaffidavit nine affidavits of cohabitation all notarized by Judge Rojo. All affidavits were notarized on the day of the contracting parties marriages.6The affidavits contained the following jurat:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] at Bacolod City, Philippines.

(sgd.) HON. REMEGIO V. ROJO Judge7For notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized, Judge Rojo allegedly violated Circular No. 190 dated February 26, 1990.8Circular No. 190 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues that affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judges official functions and duties as solemnizing officer.9Thus, Judge Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized.

Also, according to Rex, Judge Rojo allegedly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation without affixing his judicial seal on the affidavits. He also did not require the parties to present their competent pieces of evidence of identity as required by law. These omissions allegedly constituted gross ignorance of the law as notarial rules [are] x x x simple and elementary to ignore.10

Judge Rojo commented on the complaint.11He argued that Rex was only harassing him. Rex is the father of Frialyn Tupal. Frialyn has a pending perjury case in Branch 5 for allegedly making false statements in her affidavit of cohabitation. Rex only filed a complaint against Judge Rojo to delay Frialyns case.12

Judge Rojo did not deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation. He argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was connected with his official functions and duties as a judge.13The Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary14does not prohibit judges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.15Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular No. 190.

Judge Rojo also argued that he did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is a judge, not a notary public. Thus, he was not required to affix a notarial seal on the affidavits he notarized.16

Also, Judge Rojo argued that he need not notarize the affidavits with the parties presenting their competent pieces of evidence of identity. Since he interviewed the parties as to the contents of their affidavits, he personally knew them to be the same persons who executed the affidavit.17The parties identities are unquestionable.18

Judge Rojo alleged that other judges in Bacolod City and Talisay City also notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they solemnized.19He pleaded not to make him [complainant Tupals] doormat, punching bag and chopping block20since other judges also notarized affidavits of cohabitation.

In its report dated July 30, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Rojo be fined P9,000.00 and sternly warned that repeating the same offense will be dealt with more severely.

The Office of the Court Administrator ruled that affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with municipal trial court judges official functions and duties. Under the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary,21a judges duty is to personally examine the allegations in the affidavit of cohabitation before performing the marriage ceremony.22Nothing in the Guidelines authorizes judges to notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.

Since Judge Rojo notarized without authority nine affidavits of cohabitation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P1,000.00 per affidavit of cohabitation notarized.23

The issue is whether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law.

This court finds Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges may act as notaries public. However, they may do so only in their ex officio capacities. They may notarize documents, contracts, and other conveyances only in the exercise of their official functions and duties. Circular No. 190 dated February 26, 1990 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryMunicipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the function of notaries publicex officiounder Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of this power:

MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries publicex officioin the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties x x x. They may not, as notaries publicex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extrajudicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).They may also act as notaries public ex officio only if lawyers or notaries public are lacking in their courts territorial jurisdiction. They must certify as to the lack of lawyers or notaries public when notarizing documents ex officio:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryHowever, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries publicex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.24ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryJudge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his courts territorial jurisdiction. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190.

Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must personally interview the contracting parties and examine the requirements they submitted.25The parties must have complied with all the essential and formal requisites of marriage. Among these formal requisites is a marriage license.26

A marriage license is issued by the local civil registrar to parties who have all the qualifications and none of the legal disqualifications to contract marriage.27Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must personally examine the marriage license presented.28

If the contracting parties have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry, they are exempt from the marriage license requirement.29Instead, the parties must present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.30The judge, as solemnizing officer, must personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation as to the parties having lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and the absence of any legal impediment to marry each other.31The judge must also execute a sworn statement that he personally ascertained the parties qualifications to marry and found no legal impediment to the marriage.32Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArt. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.Section 5 of the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary also provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 5. Other duties of solemnizing officer before the solemnization of the marriage in legal ratification of cohabitation. In the case of a marriage effecting legal ratification of cohabitation, the solemnizing officer shall (a) personally interview the contracting parties to determine their qualifications to marry; (b) personally examine the affidavit of the contracting parties as to the fact of having lived together as husband and wife for at least five [5] years and the absence of any legal impediments to marry each other; and (c) execute a sworn statement showing compliance with (a) and (b) and that the solemnizing officer found no legal impediment to the marriage.Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary, the person who notarizes the contracting parties affidavit of cohabitation cannot be the judge who will solemnize the parties marriage.

As a solemnizing officer, the judges only duty involving the affidavit of cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without legal impediment to marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties affidavit of cohabitation.

Thus, affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with the judges official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the parties requirements for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine and review the affidavits statements before performing the marriage ceremony. Should there be any irregularity or false statements in the affidavit of cohabitation he notarized, he cannot be expected to admit that he solemnized the marriage despite the irregularity or false allegation.

Thus, judges cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they will solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with their official function and duty to solemnize marriages.

Judge Rojo admitted that he notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties on the same day [he solemnized their marriages].33He notarized documents not connected with his official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190.

Judge Rojo argued that the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary does not expressly prohibit judges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation. Thus, he cannot be prohibited from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation.

To accept Judge Rojos argument will render the solemnizing officers duties to examine the affidavit of cohabitation and to issue a sworn statement that the requirements have been complied with redundant. As discussed, a judge cannot objectively examine a document he himself notarized. Article 34 of the Family Code and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary assume that the person authorized by law to administer oaths who notarizes the affidavit of cohabitation and the solemnizing officer who performs the marriage ceremony are two different persons.

Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 190 only prohibits municipal trial court judges from notarizing private documents x x x [bearing] no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges.34Since a marriage license is a public document, its counterpart, the affidavit of cohabitation, is also a public document. Thus, when he notarizes an affidavit of cohabitation, he notarizes a public document. He did not violate Circular No. 190.

An affidavit of cohabitation remains a private document until notarized. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, [rendering the document] admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.35The affidavit of cohabitation, even if it serves a public purpose, remains a private document until notarized.

Thus, when Judge Rojo notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he notarized nine private documents. As discussed, affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judges official duty to solemnize marriages. Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190.

Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 190s purpose is to eliminate competition between judges and private lawyers in transacting legal conveyancing business.36He citedBorre v. Judge Moya37where this court found City Judge Arcilla guilty of violating Circular No. 190 for notarizing a deed of sale. Judge Rojo argued that when he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he did not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business.38Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 190.

InBorre, Judge Arcilla notarized a deed of sale. This is the context in which this court stated that [judges] should not compete with private [lawyers] or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business.39

At any rate, Circular No. 190s purpose is not limited to documents used to transact legal conveyancing business. So long as a judge notarizes a document not connected with his official functions and duties, he violates Circular No. 190.

Thus, inMayor Quiones v. Judge Lopez, Jr.,40this court fined Judge Lopez for notarizing a certificate of candidacy. InEllert v. Judge Galapon, Jr.,41this court fined Judge Galapon for notarizing the verification page of an answer filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The documents involved in these cases were not used to transact legal conveyancing business. Nevertheless, this court found Judge Lopez and Judge Galapon guilty of violating Circular No. 190.

Since Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were not connected with his official function and duty to solemnize marriages, he violated Circular No. 190.

Also, Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public are lacking in Bacolod City. Failure to certify that lawyers or notaries public are lacking in the municipality or circuit of the judges court constitutes violation of Circular No. 190.42

That other judges have notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriages they solemnized does not make the practice legal. Violations of laws are not excused by practice to the contrary.43

All told, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 190.

Judge Rojo also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Rule IV, Section 2, paragraph (b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits a notary public from notarizing documents if the signatory is not personally known to him. Otherwise, the notary public must require the signatory to present a competent evidence of identity:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 2. Prohibitions. x x x x

(b)A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document

(1)is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2)is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

A competent evidence of identity guarantees that the person appearing before the notary public is the signatory to the instrument or document to be notarized. If the notary public does not personally know the signatory, he must require the signatory to present a competent evidence of identity.

In all the nine affidavits of cohabitation Judge Rojo notarized, he only stated that the parties subscribed and swore to their affidavits before him. Judge Rojo did not state that the parties were personally known to him or that the parties presented their competent pieces of evidence of identity. Thus, Judge Rojo violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Judge Rojo argued that he personally knew the parties to the affidavits of cohabitation. They personally appeared before him to subscribe to their affidavits of cohabitation. He also interviewed them on their qualifications to contract marriage. Thus, the parties to the affidavit of cohabitation need not present their competent pieces of evidence of identity.44

That the parties appeared before Judge Rojo and that he interviewed them do not make the parties personally known to him. The parties are supposed to appear in person to subscribe to their affidavits. To personally know the parties, the notary public must at least be acquainted with them.45Interviewing the contracting parties does not make the parties personally known to the notary public.

For violating Circular No. 190 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice nine times, Judge Rojo is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Judge Rojo argued that he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation in good faith. He citedSantos v. Judge How46where this court held that [g]ood faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations x x x47were defenses against gross ignorance of the law charges. His good faith in notarizing affidavits of cohabitation should not hold him administratively liable.

However, this court also held inSantosthat good faith in situations of fallible discretion [inheres] only within the parameters of tolerable judgment x x x.48Good faith does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be beyond possible margins of error.49

Circular No. 190 requires judges to certify that lawyers or notaries public are lacking in their courts territorial jurisdiction before notarizing documents. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires notaries public to personally know the signatory to the document they will notarize or require the signatory to present a competent evidence of identity. These are basic legal principles and procedure Judge Rojo violated. Failure to comply with these basic requirements nine times is not good faith.

Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct on integrity,50[j]udges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.51If the law involved is basic, ignorance constitutes lack of integrity.52Violating basic legal principles and procedure nine times is gross ignorance of the law.

This court may impose the following sanctions for gross ignorance of the law or procedure, it being a serious charge:53a. dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including governmentowned or controlled corporations;54b. suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months;55orc. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.56This court does not condone violations of law. Judges have been dismissed from the service for gross ignorance of the law. However, Judge Rojo may have been misled by other judges practice of notarizing affidavits of cohabitation in Bacolod City and Talisay City. Thus, this court finds suspension from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months sufficient sanction.

Trial court judges are advised to strictly comply with the requirements of the law. They should act with caution with respect to affidavits of cohabitation. Similar breach of the ethical requirements as in this case will be dealt with strictly.

WHEREFORE, Judge Remegio V. Rojo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental isSUSPENDED FROM OFFICEwithout salary and other benefits forSIX (6) MONTHS. His suspension is effective upon service on him of a copy of this resolution.

SERVEcopies of this resolution to all municipal trial courts in Bacolod City and Talisay City.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.A.C. No. 8637 September 15, 2014IMELDA CATO GADDI,Complainant,vs.ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO, JR.Respondent.R E S O L U T I O NCARPIO,Acting C.J.:The CaseBefore us is an administrative complaint filed by Imelda Cato Gaddi (Gaddi) against Atty. Lope M. Velasco (Velasco) for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.The FactsAccording to Gaddi, she was the Operations and Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS) when she broached the idea of opening a branch of BLSS in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya (BLSS in Solano) to Angelo Lozada (Angelo), the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS. Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi opened a BLSS in Solano. However, in April 2010, Angelo informed the management that he did not authorize a BLSS in Solano. Upon Angelo's complaint, the police officers apprehended the swimming instructors of BLSS in Solano, namely: Jonathan Lagamzon Lozare, Katherine Agatha Gaddi Ancheta, who is Gaddi' s niece, and Lorenz Ocampo Gaddi, who is Gaddi' s grandson.At past 10:00 a.m. of 22 April 2010, while inside the BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, Gaddi was informed of the apprehension of the swimming instructors. Worried, Gaddi pleaded with Angelos wife, Kristina Marie, and the BLSS Programs Manager Aleza Garcia for permission to leave the office and proceed to Nueva Vizcaya. Instead ofacceding to her plea, they commanded Gaddi tomake a handwritten admission1that the BLSS in Solano was unauthorized. They warned Gaddi that she cannot leave the office without the handwritten admission. Thus, Gaddi conceded in doing the handwritten admission and left the office before 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Subsequently, Gaddi found out that Angelo filed a complaint against her regarding the BLSS in Solano using her handwritten admission, which was already notarized by Velasco.Thus, Gaddi filed the present complaint against Velasco for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule IV, Section 2 (b) and Rule VI, Section 3. Gaddi denied that she personally appeared before Velasco to have her handwritten admission notarized. She alleged that she did not consent to its notarization nor did she personally know him, give any competent evidence of identity or sign the notarial register.In his comment dated 17 September 2010,2Velasco alleged that he was commissioned notary public for Makati City from 4 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. He alleged that Gaddi appeared before him in his notarial office in Makati City on 22 April 2010 and requested for the notarization of a four-page handwritten document. He ascertained Gaddis identity, through two identification cards her BLSSID and Tax Identification Number (TIN) ID, and that the document was her own. Thereafter, he notarized the document and recorded it in his notarial register as Doc. No. 130, Page No. 27, Book No. 192, Series of 2010. Velasco insisted that he duly complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and it was Gaddis complaint, which was notarized by a fake notary public. Velasco claimed that Gaddi only denied having the document notarized when she found out that Angelo used the document against her.In a Resolution dated 18 October 2010,3the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.The IBPs Report and RecommendationIn a Report and Recommendation dated 23 June 2011,4Investigating Commissioner Pablo S. Castillo (Investigating Commissioner) found the complaint impressed with merit, and recommended a penalty of fine ofP5,000.00 on Velasco for violation of Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.The Investigating Commissioner gave more credence to Gaddis statement that she did not personally appear before Velasco to have her handwritten admission notarized. The Investigating Commissioner found it contradictory to logic and human experience that Gaddi went first to Makati City to have her self-incriminating handwritten admission notarized before proceeding to Nueva Vizcaya. The Investigating Commissioner also believed Gaddis statement that the identification cards presented by Velasco were computer-generated from the BLSS office, since the portion of the notarial certificate listing the evidenceof identity was left blank. As to Velascos claim that Gaddis complaint had a fake notary public, the Investigating Commissionerfound it unsubstantiated.In Resolution No. XX-2013-1275passed on 13 February 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioners report and recommendation, to wit: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for violation of Rule IV, Sec. [2(b) and Rule VI, Sec.] 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Lope M. Velascos Notarial Commission is hereby REVOKED and DISQUALIFIED for being Commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years with stern [w]arning to be more circumspect in his dealing and that repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.There was no motion for reconsideration filed.The Ruling of the CourtWe sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations with modification.Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act.6Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.7A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.8The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unlessthe signatory to the document is in the notarys presence personally atthe time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.9At the time of notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or mark the notary publics notarial register.10The purpose of these requirements is to enablethe notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the signatorys free act and deed.11If the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act.12A notary public is also prohibited from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.13In the present case, contrary to Velascos claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented two identification cards as proof of her identity, the notarial certificate, in rubber stamp, itself indicates: "SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS APR 22, 2010 x x x AT MAKATI CITY. AFFIANT EXHIBITING TO ME HIS/HER C.T.C. NO. __________ ISSUED AT/ON ___________."14The unfilled spaces clearly establish that Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity of the signatory to the document. Velasco did not comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, that is, to require the presence of Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained that the handwritten admission was executed involuntarily and refused to notarize the document. Furthermore, Velasco affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. Velasco did not even present his notarial register to rebut Gaddis allegations. It is presumed that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.15In Isenhardt v. Real,16a notary public who failed to discharge his duties was meted out the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension fromthe practice of law for one year. For notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete otarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties as notary public and breached Canon 117and Rule 1.0118of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering these findings and our previous rulings,19Velasco should not only be disqualified for two years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice of law for one year.1wphi1WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lope M. Velasco GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.SO ORDERED.