Introduction

In the Philippines, the practice of notarization is an integral part of legal and commercial transactions, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of documents. Lawyers who hold commissions as notaries public often perform this function within their own law offices, providing convenience to clients. A common scenario arises in government procurement processes, where bidders must submit notarized documents such as affidavits, bid securities, and compliance statements. This raises the question: Can a lawyer-notary public lawfully notarize such documents for clients joining procurement bids directly from his own law office?

This article examines the legal framework governing notarial practice, government procurement, and professional ethics in the Philippine context. It explores the permissibility of such notarizations, potential limitations, ethical considerations, procedural requirements, and implications for violations. While the general rule allows for this practice, nuances involving conflicts of interest, impartiality, and regulatory compliance must be carefully navigated.

Legal Framework Governing Notarial Practice

Notarization in the Philippines is regulated primarily by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), as amended. These rules mandate that only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing may be commissioned as notaries public. The commission is granted by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court and is valid for two years, subject to renewal.

Key provisions relevant to the topic include:

Scope of Authority: A notary public is authorized to acknowledge signatures, administer oaths, and certify documents within their territorial jurisdiction (typically the city or province where commissioned). Notarization can occur in various venues, including the notary's law office, provided the venue is accurately recorded in the notarial register and the document itself.
Prohibitions and Disqualifications: Rule IV, Section 1 prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if:
- The notary or their spouse/relative within the fourth civil degree is a party to the instrument.
- The notary has a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction.
- The act would violate laws or public policy.

Importantly, the rules do not explicitly prohibit a lawyer-notary from notarizing documents prepared by their own law office for clients, as long as no personal interest exists. In fact, it is a standard practice for lawyers to draft and notarize documents like affidavits or contracts for their clients in the same office setting.

Venue and Documentation: The notarial act must specify the place of execution (e.g., "City of Manila"). Performing notarization in one's law office is permissible and common, as it falls within the notary's jurisdiction. The notary must maintain a notarial register, recording details such as the date, parties, document type, and fees.

Intersection with Government Procurement Law

Government procurement in the Philippines is governed by Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). This law aims to promote transparency, competitiveness, and accountability in public bidding processes.

Notarization Requirements in Procurement: Bidders participating in public procurement must submit various notarized documents, including:
- Sworn statements of eligibility and financial capability.
- Bid forms and securities.
- Affidavits of non-blacklisting or compliance with labor laws.
- Performance bonds and warranties (post-award).

These documents ensure the bidder's representations are made under oath, deterring fraud and ensuring enforceability.

Permissibility of Notarization by Client's Lawyer: RA 9184 and its IRR do not impose restrictions on who may notarize bid documents, provided the notary is duly commissioned and the notarization complies with notarial rules. Thus, a lawyer-notary can notarize documents for clients bidding in procurement processes from their own law office. This is routine in legal practice, where the lawyer often assists in preparing bid packages and notarizes them on-site for efficiency.

However, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the procuring entity may scrutinize documents for authenticity. If the notarization appears irregular (e.g., incomplete details or signs of antedating), it could lead to bid disqualification under Section 30 of RA 9184.

Special Considerations in Procurement Contexts:
- Competitive Bidding: In cases of competitive public bidding, the notary's role is ministerial—verifying identity and voluntariness. No provision in RA 9184 bars a bidder's own lawyer from acting as notary.
- Alternative Procurement Methods: For negotiated procurement or emergency purchases, similar notarization rules apply, with no additional prohibitions.
- Blacklisting and Sanctions: If a notarized bid document contains false information, both the bidder and notary could face sanctions under RA 9184's blacklisting provisions or criminal liability for falsification.

Ethical Considerations Under the Code of Professional Responsibility

The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, effective 2023) binds all lawyers, including those serving as notaries. It emphasizes integrity, competence, and avoidance of impropriety.

Canon II (Propriety): Lawyers must avoid conduct that undermines public confidence in the legal profession. Notarizing a client's bid documents in one's office does not inherently violate this, as it is a legitimate service. However, if the lawyer has a stake in the procurement outcome (e.g., contingency fees tied to bid success), it could create an appearance of bias.
Canon III (Fidelity): A notary must act with utmost fidelity, ensuring the document's truthfulness. If the lawyer knows or suspects falsehoods in the bid documents, notarization would be unethical and illegal.
Conflicts of Interest: If the lawyer-notary represents multiple clients in the same bid (e.g., competing bidders), Rule 15.03 of the CPRA prohibits such dual representation without informed consent. Additionally, if the law office advises the procuring entity, notarizing a bidder's documents would constitute a clear conflict, potentially leading to disbarment proceedings.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Guidelines: The IBP, through its chapters, monitors notarial commissions. Complaints of irregular notarization (e.g., "flying notaries" or office-based acts without proper verification) can result in revocation.

Procedural Requirements and Best Practices

To ensure compliance when notarizing procurement-related documents from one's law office:

Verification of Identity: The notary must personally verify the signer's identity using competent evidence (e.g., government-issued ID), even if the signer is a regular client.
Competent Evidence of Authority: For corporate bidders, confirm the signer's authority via board resolutions.
Notarial Certificate: Include all required elements—date, venue, parties, and jurat or acknowledgment clause. For procurement affidavits, use the jurat form to affirm under oath.
Fees and Taxes: Charge only reasonable fees (as per IBP guidelines) and remit documentary stamp taxes.
Record-Keeping: Update the notarial register immediately and submit reports to the Executive Judge.

Best practices include:

Advising clients on procurement rules to avoid inadvertent violations.
Maintaining separation between legal advice and notarial acts to preserve impartiality.
Referring clients to another notary if any doubt about interest arises.

Potential Liabilities and Remedies

Violations of notarial rules or procurement laws can lead to severe consequences:

Administrative Sanctions: Revocation or suspension of notarial commission by the Supreme Court or Executive Judge.
Disciplinary Actions: Under the CPRA, lawyers may face censure, suspension, or disbarment for unethical notarization.
Civil and Criminal Liability: Falsified notarized documents can result in civil damages or criminal charges under Articles 171-172 of the Revised Penal Code (falsification) or RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) if involving public officials.
Procurement-Specific Penalties: Bid disqualification, blacklisting for up to two years, or forfeiture of bid security under RA 9184.

Aggrieved parties (e.g., competing bidders) may file protests with the BAC or seek judicial review via certiorari.

Conclusion

In summary, a lawyer-notary public in the Philippines can generally notarize documents for clients participating in procurement bids from his own law office, provided there is no conflict of interest, direct involvement in the transaction, or violation of ethical standards. This practice aligns with the 2004 Notarial Rules, RA 9184, and the CPRA, promoting efficient legal services while upholding document integrity. However, lawyers must exercise diligence to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, ensuring notarization remains a neutral act. For complex cases, consulting the IBP or Supreme Court rulings is advisable to mitigate risks. This framework balances professional convenience with the imperatives of transparency and accountability in public procurement.