Lawyers not liable for misuse of notarial seal without their consent — SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they permitted the misuse of their notarial commission.

In a 16-page decision, the SC's First Division dismissed the administrative complaint filed against three lawyers due to lack of proof that they allowed the unauthorized use of their notarial signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers.

"It cannot be concluded that the respondents were negligent in safekeeping their notarial details. There is nothing preventing others from using respondent's names and requesting that notarial stamps and notarials seals be made in their names," it said.

"Notaries are not immune from identity theft," it added.

The SC said factors proving negligence on the part of lawyers were also not present.

According to the court, an administrative complaint was filed against the three lawyers who allegedly allowed the unauthorized use of their notarial signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers for a fee.

"The complaint stemmed from the alleged notarization of documents related to criminal cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the Malampaya Fund issue. The documents were supposedly notarized using the respondents' signatures, notarial seals, and registers–allegedly forged by Ben Hur Luy," the SC said.

Luy was the whistleblower in the P10-billion pork barrel scam involving businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles. He served as chief financial officer of JLN Corporation, and president of one of the foundations Napoles set up for the alleged scam.

Luy later claimed that government officials pocketed public funds from the Malampaya gas project through non-existent, non-government organizations connected to Napoles.

The SC said the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found the lawyers guilty of violating notarial rules and recommended a six-month suspension, the revocation of their notarial commissions, and a two-year disqualification from serving as notaries public.

For its part, the SC overturned this ruling, noting that there were missing elements in the documents such as their notarial commission serial numbers, office addresses, IBP chapters, and Professional Tax Receipt numbers.

It dismissed the administrative complaint against one lawyer for lack of merit.

However, the SC found two of the lawyers guilty for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for failing to respond to the IBP.

The decision was promulgated in November 2024 and published in March 2025. — VDV, GMA Integrated News