[A.C. No. 10592. April 3, 2019.

NAPOLEON R. AGATON, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUCAS V. SUGUI, Respondent.

REYES, J., JR., J.
FACTS:
Sometime in April 2011, Atty. Sugui notarized an Affidavit of a certain Luz Rollon.
However, Agaton claims that Luz Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui to swear to
the Subject Affidavit, which is shown by the fact that above the name Luz Rollon was
written “by: A.S. Rollon”. Moreover, it appears that a Community Tax Certificate (CTC)
was presented to Atty. Sugui and that the details of the same were not indicated in the
Subject Affidavit. Agaton further claims that Luz Rollon was out of the country from
February 2011 to December 2011 certified by the Bureau of Immigration, making it
impossible for her to have personally appeared before Atty. Sugui in August 2011.
For his defense, Atty. Sugui claimed to have been burdened by numerous documents
for signature at the time he personally notarized the Subject Affidavit. Likewise, he failed
to notice the word "by" next to the signature of the person appearing before him, who in
turn presented an "identification card" as proof of identity. Finally, Atty. Sugui posits that
he acted in good faith and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
official functions had not been overturned by the evidence of Agaton.
The Court referred the case to the IBP. The IBP Commissioner recommended that his
notarial commission be revoked and disqualified from appointment for 2 years and
suspended from the practice of law for 6 months for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. The Commissioner said that he cannot use good faith as an excuse from
violating the 2004 Notarial Rules; that he no longer enjoyed the presumption of
regularity as the Subject Affidavit was improperly notarized in the first place.
The IBP Board adopted the findings of the IBP Commissioner but removed the
suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
The Court held that his carelessness is unacceptable. His argument that he was
burdened by numerous documents awaiting his signature and that there were a
number of persons waiting in line to have their documents notarized must fail.
Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules clearly provides:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. -xxx

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument
or document---
 (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

Here, it was determined by the IBP that the Subject Affidavit was indeed notarized by
Atty. Sugui without the personal appearance of the supposed affiant, Luz Rollon. This
fact was not denied by Atty. Sugui.
Moreover, the jurat of the Subject Affidavit was; based on a mere CTC, which is not
among those considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules.
In the case of Heir of Unite v. Guzman, the Court suspended the respondent from the
practice of law for his act of notarizing a document using only a CTC as evidence of
identity.
Time and again, the Court has held that notarization is not a purposeless ministerial act;
by converting an otherwise private instrument into a public one, notarization is imbued
with public interest and therefore authorized officers are bound to observe utmost
diligence in the performance of their duties as such. Based on the established facts, it is
therefore clear that Atty. Sugui is liable for violating the mandatory provisions of the
2004 Notarial Rules.
The Court REINSTATED the recommendation by the IBP Commissioner. Atty.
Sugui is SUSPENDED from his practice of law for 6 months. His notarial
commission is REVOKED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
notary public for 2 years.