A.C. No. 13557 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4293] - DOMINADOR C. FONACIER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GREGORIO E. MAUNAHAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the dissent's fear that the findings in an administrative case would undermine the findings made in a separate civil or criminal case involving related facts is a mere impression that is more notional than conceptual. [47] (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring in the original) Given the foregoing, the Court shall now determine Atty. Maunahan' s administrative liability, if any, notwithstanding his acquittal in the three falsification cases. II. At the outset, the Court stresses that A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) , which repealed the Code of Professional Responsibility and which took effect on May 29, 2023 [48] provides, in Section 1 thereof, for the Code's applicability in all pending and future cases, except in instances where "in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case, the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern." Here, the Court deems the application of CPRA in relation to the 2004 Notarial Rules to be proper in determining Atty. Maunahan's administrative liabilities. 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. [49] 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. [50] In this regard, Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Notarial Rules provide that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument of documents is not: (1) in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity. In addition, "the required personal appearance and competent evidence of identity allow the notary public to verify the identity of the principal himself or herself and determine whether the instrument, deed, or document is his or her voluntary act." [51] Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Notarial Rules, as amended, per En Banc Resolution dated February 19, 2008, defines "competent evidence of identity" as follows: Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) At least one current identification document