MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA v ATTY.

SYLVESTER PARADO

A.C. No. 10859, January 26, 2016

FACTS:

In June 2006 respondent Atty. Parado notarized the real estate mortgage over a parcel of land on which family
home was constituted. The mortgage was between RC Lending Investors, Inc. as mortgagee and the petitioner’s
sisters as mortgagors. Respondent Parado also notarized the affidavit allegedly executed by the mortgagors. RC
Lending eventually filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, which was granted.

Petitioner Fatima Japitana then filed a complaint, which was endorsed to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The
complaint assailed that the signatures in the real estate mortgage as well as the affidavit were forgeries. She
alleged that: 1) Parado did not require the persons before him to present any valid identification; 2) her sister
Theresa Japitana was a schizophrenic; and 3) Parado had no notarial authority.

The IBP investigating commissioner noted that Parado had previously testified in court that the mortgagors and
the witnesses personally appeared before him and there was no proof that he lied before the court. However, he
was found to be dishonest when he testified that he was issued a notarial commission effective until 2008. This
claim was belied by the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of RTC of Cebu City. The IBP resolved to revoke
the notarial commission of respondent if presently commissioned. He was also disqualified from being
commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Parado is liable for notarizing documents without notarial commission?

HELD:

Yes. Under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial
acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made. Commission either means
the grant of authority to perform notarial or the written evidence of authority.

Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. Atty. Parado knowingly
performed notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial commission for the said period. Atty. Parado’s
misdeed run afoul of his duties and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public. He was remiss in his
professional duties and responsibilities.

Even if Atty. Parado had a valid notarial commission, he should have required the presentation of competent
evidence of identity instead of merely relying on the Certificate of Community Tax (CTC). Section 12, Rule II of the
Rules of Notarial Practice defines competent evidence of identity as:

1) At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and
signature of the individual; or
2) The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction, who
is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally
knows the individual and shows to the notary public a documentary identification.

Apparently, CTCs are not competent evidence of identity.

Atty. Parado is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and permanently disqualified from being
commissioned as a Notary Public.