BARTOLOME vs.

BASILIO

FACTS:

Atty. Bartolome filed a complaint against Atty. Basilio for notarizing a Joint Affidavit by Loreto M.
Tanedo (Tanedo) and Ramon T. Lim despite the fact that Tanedo had already passed away. It is undisputed
that, Tanedo died on December 1, 2003 and the document was notarized on January 2006.

In his answer to the complaint, he argued that he verified the verified the identities of the persons
through their SSS ID and Driver’s License. And that he denied any knowledge of such misrepresentation.
The IBP found that Basilio manifested gross negligence, and a complete disregard of Notarial Rules since
he failed to indicate in the Joint Affidavit the details of the valid IDs which where allegedly shown as
competent evidence of identity of a person who appeared before him.

Moreover, the respondent (Basilio) failed to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of
Court of the RTC; contrary to Sec. 2(h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules.

ISSUE: (1) WON respondent (Basilio) is liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.

(2) WON it is valid without being registered or recorded in the Notarial Register.

HELD:

(1) Yes, respondent is liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.

The act of notarization is impressed with public interest and required the highest degree of care
in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.

Under Sec. 5(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules states that a notarial public shall not notarized a
document that is incomplete. Furthermore, Sec. 8, Rule III of the same Rules, states that the facts must be
stated and attested by the notarial public in a particular notarization as provided for by the Rules.
Moreover, Sec. 6 under the Notarial Rules states that the identity of the person should be identified by
the Notarial Public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules.

In this case, Basilio affixed his official signature and seal without properly identifying the person
signed the Joint Affidavit. Further, the valid IDs presented cannot be given credence because it lacks their
details on the face of the document.

(2) No, it is not valid and binding without being registered or recorded in the Notarial Register.

Sec. 2(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules states that every notarial act shall be recorded in the
notarial register at the time following the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rule if the
signatory is not personally known to the notary.
 The Court pointed out in this case, if the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial
records cannot be considered a public document. It is to be noted that notarial public exercises duties
calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries should not take part or allow themselves to be part of
illegal transactions. Notarial public should not notarized a document unless the person who signed is the
very person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of
what are stated therein.

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall not engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties, otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document
would be undermined.