In the Philippine legal system, notaries public serve as officers of the Supreme Court charged with the solemn duty of authenticating documents, verifying identities, and ensuring the voluntary execution of instruments. Their role is indispensable in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of legal transactions. The Office of the Ombudsman, created under Republic Act No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989), functions as the independent constitutional body tasked with investigating and prosecuting graft, corruption, and other anomalies involving public officials and employees. Ombudsman proceedings—whether administrative, criminal, or both—invariably require sworn statements, complaint-affidavits, counter-affidavits, position papers, and verifications that must be notarized to attain the status of competent evidence. The intersection of these two institutions gives rise to a distinct and recurring problem: conflict of interest on the part of notaries public when their notarial acts are performed in connection with Ombudsman cases.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), which remain the governing framework, explicitly codify the notary’s obligation of impartiality. Rule I, Section 1 declares that the notary public is a public officer whose acts are clothed with public faith and credit. Rule IV enumerates absolute disqualifications: a notary shall not perform a notarial act if (a) the notary or the notary’s spouse or relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is a party to the instrument; (b) the notary or the notary’s spouse or relative has a direct or indirect pecuniary or financial interest in the transaction; or (c) the notary is otherwise disqualified by law or by the rules. Beyond these textual prohibitions, the Supreme Court has long interpreted the notary’s duty to require complete neutrality. A notary who is personally invested in the outcome of the document—whether as counsel, witness, beneficiary, or interested government employee—ceases to be an impartial witness and becomes, in effect, an advocate or participant. Such dual capacity destroys the very purpose of notarization.

In Ombudsman cases the conflict manifests in several concrete scenarios, each carrying procedural and disciplinary consequences.

First, the most frequent violation occurs when a lawyer who is also a notary public notarizes the complaint-affidavit or counter-affidavit of a client whom the same lawyer represents in the Ombudsman proceeding. By notarizing the document, the lawyer certifies under oath that the affiant personally appeared, was identified, and executed the instrument voluntarily. Yet as counsel of record, the lawyer is duty-bound to advocate zealously for the client’s cause. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared this dual role impermissible because the notary’s certification transforms the lawyer into a witness to the very facts pleaded, thereby creating an irreconcilable conflict between the duty of impartial certification and the duty of partisan representation. The notarized affidavit may be treated as unsworn, exposing the complaint to outright dismissal for lack of proper verification or, in the case of a counter-affidavit, weakening the respondent’s defense during preliminary investigation.

Second, a notary public who is himself or herself a respondent in an Ombudsman case, or who is closely related to a respondent, cannot validly notarize documents intended for submission in that same case or in any related proceeding. The notary’s personal stake—whether to exculpate oneself or to protect a family member—directly contravenes the disqualification rules. Even the appearance of bias suffices to invalidate the act.

Third, government-employed lawyers who hold notarial commissions pose a peculiar risk. Many department legal officers or agency counsel are commissioned notaries. When an Ombudsman complaint is filed against their agency or superior, and the same lawyer-notary prepares and notarizes the counter-affidavit of the public official under investigation, a clear pecuniary and institutional conflict arises. The notary’s continued employment and career prospects are tied to the success of the defense. Philippine jurisprudence treats such notarization as void for lack of impartiality, and the Supreme Court has disciplined notaries for precisely this reason.

Fourth, notaries who possess personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the Ombudsman complaint—because they were present at the transaction or have a prior professional relationship with the parties—likewise incur a conflict. The notary’s certification must be based solely on the identification of the affiant and the voluntariness of the act, not on the notary’s independent belief in the truth of the contents. When the notary’s personal involvement colors that certification, the document loses its presumption of regularity.

Fifth, family or business ties trigger disqualification even if the notary is not counsel. A notary whose spouse or relative within the fourth degree works in the government office under investigation cannot notarize affidavits favorable to that office. Similarly, a notary who holds shares in a corporation being probed for graft cannot notarize corporate affidavits submitted to the Ombudsman.

The procedural consequences are severe. An unsworn or improperly notarized complaint-affidavit may be dismissed outright under Ombudsman rules, although the Ombudsman retains discretion to investigate motu proprio when public interest demands. Counter-affidavits that are invalidly notarized carry less evidentiary weight and may be disregarded during the preliminary investigation stage. In criminal cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan, defective notarization can lead to acquittal on technical grounds or, worse, expose the parties to charges of falsification or perjury.

Disciplinary liability attaches directly to the notary. Because notaries public derive their authority from the Supreme Court, violations fall under the Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. Administrative cases for revocation or suspension of notarial commission are routinely filed by aggrieved parties or by the Ombudsman itself when it discovers irregular notarizations during its investigations. Concurrently, because most notaries are members of the bar, the same acts constitute violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility—particularly Canon 1 (upholding the integrity of the legal profession), Canon 15 (candor, fairness and good faith), and Rule 15.03 (avoidance of conflicting interests). Penalties range from reprimand to suspension or disbarment, depending on the gravity and repetition of the offense. In extreme cases involving graft or corruption, the Ombudsman may separately charge the notary-lawyer under Republic Act No. 3019 or the Revised Penal Code for malversation, falsification, or betrayal of public trust if the notary holds a government position.

Beyond direct sanctions, improper notarization in Ombudsman cases erodes public trust in both the notarial system and the anti-corruption machinery. Citizens who rely on notarized affidavits to seek redress expect absolute impartiality; when that expectation is betrayed, cynicism toward government institutions deepens.

Prevention rests on strict adherence to ethical screening protocols. Before accepting a notarial engagement connected to any Ombudsman matter, the notary must:

Conduct a conflict check—verifying whether the notary, spouse, relatives, or employer has any interest in the outcome;
Decline notarization if any actual, potential, or apparent conflict exists;
Advise the requesting party to engage an independent notary;
Document the refusal in writing to protect against later accusations of negligence or bias; and
Maintain separate notarial records that clearly indicate the absence of any disqualifying relationship.

Lawyers who maintain notarial commissions must segregate their roles: they may represent clients before the Ombudsman, but they must never notarize their clients’ affidavits in the same case. Government legal officers should either surrender their notarial commissions during periods of potential conflict or refer all such documents to external notaries.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the notarial act is not a mere formality but a public attestation that demands the highest degree of detachment. In the sensitive arena of Ombudsman cases—where the stakes involve public office, public funds, and public accountability—this requirement is elevated to an imperative of constitutional dimension. Any compromise of the notary’s impartiality undermines the rule of law itself.

The rules are clear, the disqualifications are absolute, and the jurisprudence is settled: a notary public who allows personal, professional, or institutional interest to intrude upon a notarial act performed for use in an Ombudsman case violates both the letter of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the spirit of the anti-graft mandate. Strict enforcement of these principles remains essential to preserve the integrity of Ombudsman proceedings and the sanctity of the notarial office.