02/05/2025
The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).
The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.
Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.
Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.
The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.
Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.