View full case

WILLIAM HECTOR MARIA v. ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by William Hector Maria against Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without verifying the authenticity of the signatures, which is a violation of the Notarial Law. According to the facts, William and his wife Ernita met Emmanuel and Ethel Biteng while on vacation in Ilocos Sur. The Bitengs presented themselves as caretakers of certain parcels of land for sale, which were registered under the names of Emmanuel's aunts and late father. Emmanuel showed an SPA allegedly signed by the property owners, appointing him as their attorney-in-fact.

The SPA was notarized by Atty. Cortez. However, William doubted the authenticity of the document as it appeared to be a photocopy, and it was later confirmed that the property owners did not execute any SPA in favor of Emmanuel. When William and Ernita returned to Australia, they received a communication from the Philippines with a General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly signed by the property owners in Daly City, California, USA, but the document was not authenticated by the Philippine Embassy. Upon reviewing the pertinent documents, William discovered that all the documents involved in the sale of the properties were notarized by Atty. Cortez.

Consequently, William filed an administrative complaint seeking Atty. Cortez's suspension as a notary public and his disbarment for violating his duty as a lawyer. Atty. Cortez denied any active participation in the sale and claimed that his secretaries meticulously checked the identities and signatures of the parties involved before they were brought to him for notarization. He also asserted that the SPA he notarized was not the one used in the registration of the properties.

The parties eventually settled their differences, and the titles of the land were turned over to William and Ernita.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated the Notarial Law by not verifying the authenticity of the signatures in the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) he notarized.

  2. Whether the respondent should be suspended as a notary public and disbarred for violating his duty as a lawyer.

RULING:

  1. The respondent violated the Notarial Law by not verifying the authenticity of the signatures in the SPA he notarized. The complainant provided evidence that the signatures in the SPA were not authentic, and it was the duty of the respondent as a notary public to verify the authenticity of the signatures before notarizing the document.

  2. The Court ruled that the respondent should be suspended as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a notary public. However, the Court found no basis to disbar the respondent for violating his duty as a lawyer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notaries public have the duty to verify the authenticity of the signatures in documents they notarize, as provided for in the Notarial Law.

  • Lawyers who also serve as notaries public should exercise extra caution and ensure the genuineness of the signatures in the documents they notarize.

  • Violation of the duty of a notary public to verify the authenticity of signatures may warrant the suspension of the notary public.