Imprudent notarization

Sometime in December 1991, spouses Ben and Edit Solomon went to a law office for notarization of a Deed of Sale of a parcel of land they purchased. After the said deed of sale was signed, sealed and duly entered in Attorney Hermosa’s notarial register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No. 19 in Book No. III, Series of 1991, the spouses proceeded home with the document.

Six years later however, the spouses were charged with estafa through falsification of public document in connection with a dispute over the ownership of the said land between the spouses and Danny Geron. At the trial, Geron presented in court an affidavit executed by Atty. Hermosa denying the authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale and contending that the spouses forged his notarial signature.

This prompted Ben and Edit to file a verified complaint-affidavit against Atty. Hermosa for serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyer’s oath and notarial law. According to them, the deed of sale contained all the formalities of a duly notarized deed of sale, including an impression of Atty. Hermosa’s notarial dry seal. The spouses further said that they could not have forged the signature of Atty. Hermosa for they were not learned in the technicalities surrounding a notarial act. Neither do they had access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature on the subject deed of sale or elsewhere.

Atty. Hermosa still insisted that he did not notarize the said deed of sale but admitted that he once worked as a junior lawyer at that law office and was its notary public. He explained that, as a matter of procedure in their law office, documents underwent scrutiny by the senior lawyers and it was only upon their approval that he notarized the same. He further admitted that in some occasions, the secretaries in the law firm, by themselves, would affix the dry seal of the junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm. He however maintained that he normally required the parties to exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before him as notary public. So he would have remembered the spouses had they actually appeared before him on that date. He said that it was only on November 5, 1997 that he met the spouses where Ben personally acknowledge before him a deed of sale concerning another property that the spouses bought. And to further disprove the accusation against him, he asserted that he was on vacation on December 27, 1991, at the time the subject deed of sale was notarized. He therefore supposed that the spouses must have gone to their law office and induced one of the secretaries, with the agreement of the senior lawyers, to notarize the document. He considered himself a victim of a criminal scheme motivated by greed.

After investigation of the complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reported that although the alleged forged signature of Atty. Hermosa on the deed of sale was indeed different from his signature in other documents submitted during the investigation, Atty. Hermosa was still negligent because he allowed the office secretaries to perform his notarial functions, including the safekeeping of his notarial dry seal and notarial register. Was the IBP correct?

YES. Atty. Hermosa is guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public. When he wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office secretaries, there is really a possibility that even his signature which is the only one left for him to do can be done by the secretary or anybody for that matter. Not only is he negligent in the notarization but also in allowing the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone. He failed to exercise the necessary prudence and caution required of him as notary public. So Atty. Hermosa is hereby suspended from his commission as a notary public for a period of two years, or if he is no longer a notary public, to be disqualified from appointment as a notary public for a period of two years, with a warning that a repetition of similar negligent acts would be dealt with more severely (Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo vs. Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo, A.C No. 5838, January 17, 2005).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]