This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Traya v. Villamor,[23] we found the respondent notary public guilty of gross misconduct in his notarial practice for failing to observe the proper procedure in determining that the person appearing before him is the same person who executed the document presented for notarization. Taking into account that it was his second offense, he was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.[24] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| 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.[10] 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.[11] Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, 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 truth of what are stated therein.[12] A notary public is duty-bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, to swear before him that he is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the same.[13] | |||||