Facts:

Allegedly, on 14 September 2000 respondent notarized a SPA supposedly executed by complainant but
the latternever appeared to the former as she was in Germany at that time.
The SPA authorizes complainants brother tomortgage her real property located in Antipolo
City.Complainant presented a certified true copy of her Germanpassport]and a Certification from the
BID indicating that she arrived in the Philippines on 22 June 2000 and left thecountry on 4 August
2000. The passport further indicated that she arrived again in the Philippines only on 1
July2001.Complainant submitted that because of respondents act, the property subject of the SPA was
mortgaged and later foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.In his answer, respondent denied the
allegations in the complaint and claimed that she met the complainant throughher brother Wilfredo
Gusi and sister-in-law Lorena Gusi who seek advice for a computer business which will befinanced by the
complianant. Respondent also claimed that Sps Gusi and the complainant appeared onSeptember
14,2000 in his office to have the SPA notarized. The parties signed and presented TCTs and the original
TransferCertificate of the property subject of fhte SPA.He further averred that his services was engaged
by the Gusi in a civil case but it was discontinued because of non-payment of his services. Furthermore,
he claimed that the claims of the complainant has already prescribed and theSPA was never used to
prejudice third person and did not cause grave injury to the complainant. The IBP Board of Governors
issued a resolution adopting the report and recommendationand of the Investigating Commissioner.
Afterdue proceeding, found respondent guilty of gross negligence as a notary public and recommended
that he besuspended from the practice of law for one year and disqualified from reappointment as
notary public for two (2)years.Feel aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
aforesaid Resolution. This was, however,denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution dated 11
December 2009
.Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross negligence as a notary public.
Ruling:The SC sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The SC held that the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner are supported by evidence on record, as well as applicable lawsand
rules. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhen he
made it appear that complainant personally appeared before him and subscribed an SPAauthorizing her
brother to mortgage her property.A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person
who signs it is the same personwho executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the
contents and the truth of whatare stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signatureof the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
partys free act.
Suchprovision is embodied in Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Lawand
which further was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on NotarialPractice of
2004.Respondents claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, the rule should be construed to mean twoyears from
the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule otherwise would causeinjustice to parties
who may have discovered the wrong committed to them only at a much laterdate. In this case,
the complaint was filed more than three years after the commission of the actbecause it was only after
the property was foreclosed that complainant discovered the SPA.