FACTS:

The complainant filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against the respondent, alleging that the respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) with a forged signature of the complainant as the supposed principal. The complainant claimed that he was out of the country when the SPA was executed and notarized. He presented certifications from the Government of Singapore and the Philippine Bureau of Immigration to prove that he was overseas during the relevant dates. The complainant also presented a report from the National Bureau of Investigation stating that the signature on the SPA was not written by him. The complainant further alleged that due to the SPA, his real property was mortgaged and subsequently foreclosed. The respondent admitted notarizing the SPA but argued that he initially refused to notarize it due to the absence of the supposed affiant. He claimed that he notarized the SPA when the complainant's wife came back to his office with a person she introduced as Charles Baylon. The respondent believed that this person was the complainant because he presented a Community Tax Certificate bearing the name Charles Baylon. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that the respondent be strongly admonished, his notarial commission be revoked, and be barred from being granted a notarial commission for one year. The IBP-Board of Governors issued a resolution adopting this recommendation. The Supreme Court agreed with the finding that the respondent had been negligent in his duties as a notary public and revoked his notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment for two years.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent should be held liable for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) bearing a forged signature.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent should be held liable. The respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Notarization is an important act that carries substantive public interest. Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties. In this case, the nature of the SPA authorized the complainant's wife to mortgage the subject property. The respondent should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person representing himself as the complainant. Relying on a Community Tax Certificate presented by an impostor is not sufficient proof of identity. The respondent should have compared the signatures in previous documents notarized for the complainant to the impostor's signature. Hence, the respondent's notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from being reappointed as a Notary Public for a period of two years.

PRINCIPLES:

• Notarization is invested with substantive public interest.

• Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties.

• Community Tax Certificates are not reliable proof of identity.

• Comparing signatures in previous documents is necessary to ascertain the authenticity of a signature.