A.C. No. 13054 - Ong vs. Bijis

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13054)

Factual Background

In February 2006 three persons, Mary Ann Canlas, Teresita A. Puntual, and Ma. Salome A. Dacuycuy, visited Ong and represented that they had been commissioned by the registered owners of two parcels of land in Davao City to seek a creditor for a mortgage. They presented two Special Powers of Attorney purportedly executed by Catalino C. Sayon and Donata Cajes Sayon, and by Simeon Enoch and Felisa N. Enoch, respectively, and showed owner’s duplicate copies of the Transfer Certificates of Title for the subject parcels. Convinced by these representations, Ong lent P50,000 in cash and accepted a check for P45,000, and signed two documents denominated as real estate mortgages. The parties agreed on a six-month term at ten percent interest. A few days later the visitors returned with notarized copies of the mortgages and, according to the complaint, Atty. Bijis had notarized the SPAs and the mortgage purportedly executed by Enoch. No payments were made thereafter, and in February 2007 Ong learned from relatives, neighbors, and barangay officials that the registered owners named in the documents had died in 1984, 1993, and 1994, respectively.

Complaint and Allegations

Ong filed a disbarment complaint alleging that Atty. Bijis notarized two SPAs and a real estate mortgage despite some signatories being long deceased and therefore unable to have personally appeared for notarization. The complaint alleged that the notarized instruments were either forged or had been acknowledged by impostors and that the notarial acts enabled a fraudulent mortgage to be offered to Ong.

Respondent's Answer

Atty. Bijis admitted that he notarized the documents but maintained that the persons who appeared before him acknowledged that they were the same persons whose signatures appeared on the documents. He averred that he relied on the presence of the affiants, on residence certificates and on the certificates of title presented to him. He admitted that he did not personally know the affiants and contended that impostors had posed as the true landowners. He characterized the incident as his first unfortunate experience in thirty-five years of practice.

IBP Proceedings

The parties did not attend the mandatory conference before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), which was deemed terminated. The parties were directed to submit position papers; only Atty. Bijis filed a position paper. The Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation dated October 31, 2019, recommending revocation of Atty. Bijis’ notarial commission and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public, together with a two-year suspension from being a notary public. The Investigating Commissioner emphasized the notary’s duty to require competent evidence of identity and the insufficiency of the defense that impostors had posed as the affiants.

IBP-Board of Governors' Findings and Recommendation

The IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s factual findings and recommendation with modifications and credited Atty. Bijis for honesty and his lack of prior offenses. The IBP-BOG resolved to revoke his notarial commission immediately, disqualify him from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Issue Before the Court

The sole issue before the Court was whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Bijis administratively liable for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and, by extension, for breaches of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Court's Conclusion on Liability

The Court affirmed the IBP-BOG’s findings and recommendation and held Atty. Bijis administratively liable for negligence in his duties as a notary public. The Court emphasized that the personal appearance of the affiant and the examination of competent evidence of identity are indispensable requirements under the Notarial Rules, and that a notary may not rely on mere residence certificates or community tax certificates in lieu of identification documents bearing a photograph and signature.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Identity Requirements

Relying on Section 1, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, and on Section 12, Rule II as previously formulated and as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the Court explained that “competent evidence of identity” requires at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or appropriate witness identification under the Rules. The Court observed that community tax certificates do not bear photograph and signature and that the Court had previously declined to treat cedulas as competent evidence of identity. The Court cited prior decisions to stress the unreliability of community tax certificates and to justify the list of acceptable identification documents provided in the amended rule.

Court's Factual Findings on Absence of Personal Appearance and Forgery Risk

The Court found that Atty. Bijis admitted he did not personally know the affiants and that he accepted residence certificates and community tax certificates as proof of identity. The Court noted as dispositive that the registered owners named in the documents had died years before the alleged notarizations and therefore could not have personally appeared. The Court rejected Atty. Bijis’ contention that impostors had deceived him, reasoning that a diligent notary, in requesting proper photo-bearing identification, would have discovered the deception. The Court further found that Ong did not personally appear before Atty. Bijis for the notarization of the mortgage, that her signature was likely pre-existing at the time of notarization, and that the notary did not claim the affiants signed in his presence, all of which constituted a deviation from the Notarial Rules.

Ethical Violations and Public Interest in Notarial Acts

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13054)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Josephine R. Ong filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Salvador M. Bijis for notarizing two special powers of attorney and a real estate mortgage despite some signatories being deceased.
The complaint proceeded through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors before elevation to the Court.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated October 31, 2019, which the IBP-Board of Governors acted upon in a Resolution dated February 28, 2020.

Key Factual Allegations

In February 2006, three individuals named Mary Ann Canlas, Teresita A. Puntual, and Ma. Salome A. Dacuycuy visited Ong and represented that they were commissioned by the registered owners of two parcels of land in Davao City to find a creditor for mortgage.
The visitors presented two documents denominated as Special Powers of Attorney respectively executed by Catalino C. Sayon and Donata Cajes Sayon and by Simeon Enoch and Felisa N. Enoch, and showed owner’s duplicate copies of the Transfer Certificates of Title.
Ong lent P50,000.00 in cash and accepted a check for P45,000.00 in reliance on representations that the loan would be repaid within six months at ten percent interest, and she signed two instruments denominated as real estate mortgages.
A few days later the visitors returned with notarized copies of the real estate mortgages, and Atty. Bijis notarized the SPAs and the real estate mortgage purportedly executed by Enoch.
No payments were ever made, and in February 2007 Ong learned from relatives, neighbors, and barangay officials that Sayon, Donata, and Enoch had died in 1984, 1994, and 1993 respectively and thus could not have executed the documents in 2006.

Respondent's Contentions

Atty. Salvador M. Bijis admitted notarizing the subject documents but asserted that the persons who appeared before him acknowledged that they were the same persons whose signatures appeared in the documents.
Atty. Bijis averred that he relied on the presence and residence certificates and the certificates of title shown to him and concluded that impostors must have posed as the true landowners.
Atty. Bijis represented that this was his first unfortunate experience in thirty-five years of legal practice.

IBP Proceedings

The mandatory conference before the IBP-CBD was deemed terminated for lack of appearance by the parties.
Only Atty. Bijis filed a position paper in response to the IBP-CBD directives.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended revocation of Atty. Bijis’ notarial commission and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public, plus suspension from being a notary public for two years.
The IBP-Board of Governors approved and adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings with modification, found Atty. Bijis honest in his admissions, revoked his notarial commission immediately, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

Issue

The sole issue the Court considered was whether the IBP correctly found Atty. Bijis administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Statutory Framework

Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines acknowledgment to require personal appearance before the notary, personal knowledge or identification through competent evidence of identity, and a representation that the signature was voluntarily affixed.
Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rul