GREGORY FABAY vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA.
A.C. No. 8723 ; January 26, 2016
DOCTRINE:
Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of
this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, 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 purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.
FACTS:
1. Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by
notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the
principals therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long
before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise
notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo Perez was made to
appear as attorney-in-fact of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the
latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already dead. Further,
complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plaintiffs, participated
in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law.
2. Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed
the SP A on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia
Perez, there was no misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of
Amador Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other co-
owners, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.
3. Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and
presented the certificate issued by the barangay captain showing that there was
no record of his attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the
barangay.
4. IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have violated the provisions of the notarial law.
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that his notarial commission be revoked and
that he be disqualified to be commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
ISSUE:
Whether 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.
DECISION:
Yes.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of
the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
xxxx
(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.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law
but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's
personal appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SPA was to
authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the principals "to sue and be sued in
any administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit that may arise out of
their properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to
sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two
were already dead at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names
were nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of the
SPA. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was likewise allowed to sign on
behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad. Worse,
he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case that was filed in
court. In effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios'
representation of four of the six principals of the SPA, doing away with the actual
physical appearance of all the parties. There is no question then that Atty. Resuena
ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance of
the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial law,
he also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-
observance.
