29/09/2025
SC Reminder: No Presence, No Notarization βοΈ
The Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for six months for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of a signatory. In a Resolution penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the Court emphasized that personal appearance is the best safeguard of authenticity in notarization. Notaries public are strictly barred from notarizing if the signatory is absent or not properly identified.
π At Tolentino & Associates, we require the personal presence of all signatories and valid proof of identity before notarizing, in full compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
SUPREME COURT: NOTARY PUBLIC CAN'T PERFORM NOTARIAL ACT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF SIGNATORY
| The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for being commissioned as a notary public for six months after he notarized a document without requiring one of the signatories thereto to personally appear before him.
In an 11-page ruling penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division has found Atty. Arnulfo Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he was barred from being commissioned as a notary public for six months.
The administrative complaint stemmed from the disbarment cases filed by Macario Mina against Attys. Arnulfo Manigos, Florencio Anchuvas, and Roberto Arca on the ground that they committed falsehood and have intentionally misled the Court.
Mina alleged that Atty. Manigos notarized an instrument without requiring one of the authors thereto to personally appear before him. He claimed that the signatory could not have appeared before Atty. Manigos on the day the document was notarized because the former travelled to the United States.
As regards Atty. Arca and Atty. Anchuvas, Mina contended that they conspired in the notarization of the subject documents. In response, Atty. Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of the signatory therein. However, he claimed that he notarized the document only after he was convinced by his personal examination of the document that the signatory in fact executed and signed the same.
Meanwhile, Atty. Arca vehemently denied the accusations, and Atty. Anchuvas failed to submit a response on the complaint. In its report and recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable for violation of Rule 4, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules), but absolved Atty. Anchuvas.
The high court upheld and adopted the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors with respect to Atty. Manigos. It found that the act of Atty. Manigos notarizing a document even though the signatory thereto did not personally appear before him is a violation of notarial rules.
It cited the 2004 Notarial Rules, which provide that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these rules.
βThe requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signature,β the Supreme Court said.
On the other hand, as to the complaints against Attys. Arca and Anchuvas, it dismissed the same due to the failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims.
