Accordingly, said certification even proved that Atty. Arca did not submit his Notarial Book Nos. XI and XII. Finally, with respect to Atty. Anchuvas, the investigating commissioner simply explained that the charge against him lacked factual and legal basis. [20] Ultimately, the investigating commissioner recommended the revocation of Attys. Manigos's and Area's notarial commission, if any; their suspension from the practice of law for one year; and their disqualification from being commissioned as notary publics for two years. On the other hand, the investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the charge against Atty. Anchuvas for lack of factual and legal basis. [21] In its Extended Resolution [22] dated July 2, 2022, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors (IBP Board) affirmed the dismissal of the charge against Atty. Anchuvas, but recommended that he be fined PHP 20,000.00 for his consistent failure to obey its directives. [23] The IBP Board likewise affirmed the recommendation of the investigating commissioner concerning Atty. Manigos, but tempered the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from one year to three months. [24] With respect to Atty. Arca, however, the IBP Board arrived at a contrary conclusion based on a different factual finding. Contrary to the findings of the investigating commissioner, the IBP Board found that Atty. Arca had sufficiently established that his signature on the SPA was forged. Accordingly, this is reinforced by the fact that the details of the issued notarial seal of Atty. Arca are different from those appearing on the SPA. With this, the IBP Board recommended that the charge against Atty. Arca be dismissed for lack of merit. [25] Ruling of the Court The Court affirms and adopts the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board with respect to respondent Manigos but modifies the recommended penalty. The Court also affirms and adopts the IBP Board's recommendation to dismiss the charge against respondents Arca and Anchuvas. The recommendation to impose a PHP 20,000.00 fine on respondent Anchuvas, however, is disapproved for lack of factual and legal basis. The Court has been consistently emphatic in reminding that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. [26] It is invested with substantive public interest as it has the effect of converting a private instrument into a public document. [27] A public document, in turn, is admissible in evidence without need of first proving its authenticity. In other words, notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. [28] With the above consequence of notarization in mind, the Court carefully crafted the Notarial Rules to ensure that only authentic documents and instruments are notarized. One of the means adopted by the Court in achieving this purpose is the requirement of personal appearance by the persons who execute and sign the document or instrument before the notary public.