A.C. No. 12455 - LEDESMA D. SANCHEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CARLITO R. INTON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended that respondent's commission as notary public, if existing, be immediately revoked, and that he be barred from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. [12] The IBP-IC found respondent negligent in failing to verify the identities of the signatories to the Kasunduan , which he admitted having notarized on September 15, 2016, by requiring the presentation of their respective competent evidence of identity pursuant to Section 6, [13] in relation to Section 12, [14] Rule II of the Notarial Rules. In this regard, the IBP-IC pointed out that regardless of whether Sanchez personally appeared before respondent, the latter still failed to indicate in said document the parties' respective competent evidence of identity as required by the Rules. As regards the Acknowledgment , the IBP-IC likewise found respondent negligent considering that it is respondent's name which appears on the document as the notarizing officer and it was his secretaries who prepared and signed his signature on the same. [15] In a Resolution [16] dated June 28, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above findings and recommendation of the IBP-IC, with modification, recommending respondent's disqualification from being appointed as notary public for a period of one (1) year, instead of two (2) years, and the immediate revocation of his notarial commission if subsisting. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the Notarial Rules. The Court's Ruling The Court affirms and adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP with modifications, as will be explained hereunder. Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. [17] In this light, the Court has ruled that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. [18] In this case, the Court finds that respondent failed to live up with the duties of a notary public as dictated by the Notarial Rules. First , in notarizing the Kasunduan , [19] respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Sanchez through the competent evidence of identity required by the Rules. Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signato