View full case

SPS. RAY v. ATTY. ALLAN LATRAS

FACTS:

Spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Allan Latras for violation of the notarial law. The spouses obtained a loan from Ester Servacio and executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase as security for the loan. They alleged that Servacio and Atty. Latras fraudulently substituted the first page of the Deed of Sale with a Deed of Absolute Sale without their knowledge. Atty. Latras acted as legal counsel and notary public for Servacio and notarized the deed of absolute sale without the spouses' personal appearance in his office. In his defense, Atty. Latras denied the allegations and contended that the burden to prove the fraud rests upon the complainants. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that Atty. Latras violated the notarial law by not requiring the personal appearance of the spouses, but they failed to prove the fraud. The IBP recommended a mere reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors revoked Atty. Latras' notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Latras moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and penalties imposed by the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Allan Latras violated the notarial law by notarizing the subject document without the personal appearance of the spouses.

  2. Whether Atty. Latras should be held administratively liable for not exercising due diligence as a notary public.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the complainants and upheld the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors.

  2. The Court held that Atty. Latras violated the notarial law by notarizing the subject document without the personal appearance of the spouses. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require the parties to personally appear before the notary public. Atty. Latras admitted in his Comment that he notarized the deed without the spouses' presence. The Court emphasized that personal appearance is necessary to verify the authenticity of the signature and ensure compliance with the notarial law.

  3. The Court found Atty. Latras administratively liable for not exercising due diligence as a notary public. He failed to exercise the required diligence when he notarized the document without the spouses personally appearing before him, despite the instruction given by the complainants. The Court imposed a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission (if presently commissioned), and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notarization of documents is not an empty or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, and only those authorized may act as notaries public. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, which is why notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with their duties. (Agagon v. Bustamante)

  • Personal appearance of the parties before the notary public is required to verify the genuineness of the signature and ensure compliance with the notarial law. (Gonzales v. Bañares)

  • In administrative complaints against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is clear and preponderant evidence. (Gonzales v. Bañares)

  • Failure to personally appear before the notary public in notarizing a document constitutes a violation of the notarial law. (Orola v. Baribar)