Photo from Pexels | Kaboompics.com
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court ruled that lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of their notarial commission.
The administrative complaint stemmed from the alleged notarization of documents related to criminal cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the Malampaya Fund scandal. The documents were supposedly notarized using Atty. Talaboc, Atty. Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Oliveros’ (respondents) signatures, notarial seals, and registers – allegedly forged by Ben Hur Luy.
The Notarial Practice Rules prohibits notaries from notarizing documents if the signatory is not present and properly identified. The Ombudsman alleged that the respondents allowed others to misuse their notarial registers, stamps, and seals in exchange for money and recommended disciplinary action. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
The IBP found the respondents guilty of violating notarial rules and recommended a six-month suspension from law practice, the revocation of their notarial commissions, and a two-year disqualification from serving as notaries public.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents can be held liable for notarial violations.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the IBP, stating that there was no concrete proof that the respondents willingly allowed the misuse of their notarial registers, stamps, and seals. It noted several missing elements in the documents, including the respondents’ official notarial details, such as their notarial commission serial numbers, office addresses, IBP chapters, and Professional Tax Receipt numbers. There were also irregularities in the notarial certificates regarding the validity of their notarial commissions.
Given these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that respondents were negligent in safekeeping their notarial details. There is nothing preventing others from using the respondents’ names and requesting that notarial stamps and notarial seals be made using their name. Notaries are not immune from identity theft.
SOURCE:
- SC: Lawyers Not Liable for Misuse of Notarial Seal Without Their Consent
- Resolution dated August 30, 2017 in OMB-C-C-13-0357, etc. Vs. Atty. Editha P. Talaboc, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Mark S. Oliveros
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
