This case involved a complaint filed against two lawyers, Attys. Landrito and Toribio, for their involvement in a falsified special power of attorney (SPA). While Atty. Landrito prepared the SPA, Atty. Toribio notarized it without requiring the physical presence of the principals, who were residing outside the country at the time. The court ruled that Atty. Toribio was guilty of violating the rules on notarial practice for notarizing the SPA without the principals being physically present. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories are physically present before them. Notarization requires the physical presence of principals in order to verify their identities and
This case involved a complaint filed against two lawyers, Attys. Landrito and Toribio, for their involvement in a falsified special power of attorney (SPA). While Atty. Landrito prepared the SPA, Atty. Toribio notarized it without requiring the physical presence of the principals, who were residing outside the country at the time. The court ruled that Atty. Toribio was guilty of violating the rules on notarial practice for notarizing the SPA without the principals being physically present. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories are physically present before them. Notarization requires the physical presence of principals in order to verify their identities and
This case involved a complaint filed against two lawyers, Attys. Landrito and Toribio, for their involvement in a falsified special power of attorney (SPA). While Atty. Landrito prepared the SPA, Atty. Toribio notarized it without requiring the physical presence of the principals, who were residing outside the country at the time. The court ruled that Atty. Toribio was guilty of violating the rules on notarial practice for notarizing the SPA without the principals being physically present. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories are physically present before them. Notarization requires the physical presence of principals in order to verify their identities and
This case involved a complaint filed against two lawyers, Attys. Landrito and Toribio, for their involvement in a falsified special power of attorney (SPA). While Atty. Landrito prepared the SPA, Atty. Toribio notarized it without requiring the physical presence of the principals, who were residing outside the country at the time. The court ruled that Atty. Toribio was guilty of violating the rules on notarial practice for notarizing the SPA without the principals being physically present. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatories are physically present before them. Notarization requires the physical presence of principals in order to verify their identities and
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF THE PRINCIPALS
Legaspi vs. Attys. Landrito and Toribio
Adm. Case No. 7091, October 15, 2008 Tinga, J.
DOCTRINE: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
FACTS: This case rooted from a verified Affidavit-Complaint filed by Legaspi against Attys. Landrito and Toribio alleging that Atty. Landrito prepared a falsified SPA making it appear that Pedrito Aragon was duly authorized to file an ejectment suit with the DARAB when in fact his co- heirs could not have executed the SPA as they were then already residing in the USA and Canada. While Atty. Toribio allegedly notarized the SPA without requiring the presence of the principals. The IBP found Atty. Toribio guilty of violating the CPR and the rules on notarial practice and recommended that he be suspended both as a lawyer and a notary public for six (6) months while it recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. Landrito.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Toribio is guilty of violating the rules on notarial practice for notarizing the SPA without the presence of the principals.
RULING: YES.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
although the SPA dated December 27, 2005, was voluntarily executed by the principals, it was notarized in their absence in clear violation of the rules on notarial practice.
It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
