A.C. No. 5510 - SAJID D. AGAGON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTEMIO F. BUSTAMANTE.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Respondent should be held guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE as a Notary Public. For the foregoing infractions, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and his notarial commission suspended for one (1) year. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and revocation and suspension of respondent's notarial commission for two (2) years. We adopt the findings of the IBP. However, we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of respondent's notarial commission for one (1) year more appropriate under the circumstances. There is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Report and for failing to require the parties to the deed to exhibit their respective community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the existence and due execution of the subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and diminishing public confidence in notarial documents [2] since the subject deed was introduced as an annex to the Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession of Third Party Claimant relative to NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-12-0672-00. A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. As early as Panganiban v. Borromeo , we held that notaries public must inform themselves of the facts which they intend to certify and to take no part in illegal transactions. They must guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. [3] It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this for