A.C. No. 10450 - EMERITA B. MAHILUM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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. [9] The IBP Board of Governors adopted the above recommendation in a Resolution [10] dated May 15, 2011. The respondent moved for reconsideration [11] pleading 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 in the 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 is the 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 Resolution [12] dated February 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the respondents motion for reconsideration. Ruling of the Court The Court agrees with and sustains the IBPs finding that the official record from the Bureau of Immigration 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 c