A.C. No. 4370, May 25, 2004
Douglas G. Zaballero, complainant, vs. Atty. Mario J. Montalvan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Douglas G. Zaballero sought the disbarment of Atty. Mario J. Montalvan for alleged negligence and incompetence in notarizing three documents from 1989 to 1992, purportedly executed by complainant’s father, Eulalio Zaballero. The complainant alleged these documents were falsified, citing fake residence certificates and the impossibility of his father’s appearance, particularly for a deed notarized on June 9, 1992, as Eulalio had already died on May 31, 1992.
In his defense, respondent claimed the deceased, accompanied by another, initially appeared on October 17, 1991, but the document could not be notarized then due to a missing residence certificate. He asserted that on June 9, 1992, a representative brought the same document for notarization, and he proceeded, unaware of Eulalio’s death. He attributed the oversight to a heavy workload, having notarized 23 other documents that day.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Mario J. Montalvan violated his duties as a lawyer and notary public by notarizing a document purportedly acknowledged by a person already deceased.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating his notarial duties and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The legal logic is clear: notarization is a public function imbued with substantial interest, converting a private document into a public instrument. A notary public must ensure the personal appearance of the signatory at the time of acknowledgment. Here, respondent notarized a document on June 9, 1992, containing a declaration that Eulalio Zaballero personally appeared before him, when in fact Eulalio had died over a week earlier. This act constituted an untruthful statement in violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
The Court rejected respondent’s excuses of being misled or having a busy schedule. The duty to verify the identity and presence of the affiant is personal and non-delegable; reliance on representatives is insufficient. His failure to exercise due diligence compromised the integrity of the notarial process. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty more severe than the IBP’s initial recommendation. Respondent’s notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment for two years. Additionally, he was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a warning against repetition. The decision underscores that notaries must faithfully observe legal solemnities to maintain public confidence in notarized documents.