Angeles, Jr. vs. Bagay

A notary public is strictly liable for the unauthorized notarization of documents by his secretary in his absence, constituting gross negligence that warrants the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, reported to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan that Atty. Renato C. Bagay had notarized 18 documents while he was out of the country from March 13 to April 8, 2008. The documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer, who received information that they were notarized while Bagay was in Mexico attending a workshop.

Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, submitted a letter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan regarding the alleged notarization of 18 documents by Atty. Renato C. Bagay while Bagay was out of the country from March 13, 2008, to April 8, 2008. The documents, which included deeds of donation, deeds of absolute sale, and an extrajudicial settlement of estate, were notarized between March 14 and April 8, 2008. The Provincial Treasurer had endorsed these documents to the Provincial Legal Office after receiving information that they were notarized while Bagay was in Mexico attending a Prayer and Life Workshop.

The letter contained affidavits from the individuals who had the documents notarized, stating that they did not see Bagay sign the documents himself; instead, either his secretary signed them or the documents came out of the office already signed. Verification with the Bureau of Immigration confirmed that Bagay departed the country on March 13, 2008, and returned on April 8, 2008. Bagay, in his comment to the Supreme Court, claimed he was unaware that documents were being notarized using his name while he was abroad. He discovered that his secretary had notarized the documents without his knowledge or authority, allegedly without realizing the import of the act. He apologized for his lapses and stated that he had terminated his secretary's employment.

The Investigating Commissioner found that while the complainant's letter was not verified, Bagay's signature on his comment was strikingly similar to the signatures on the notarized documents. Bagay admitted that his secretary signed the documents in his absence. The Commissioner concluded that Bagay's negligence in employing a secretary who had access to his office, notarial seal, and records without proper training constituted a failure to meet the standards required by the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to revoke Bagay's notarial commission and disqualify him from reappointment for two years. Bagay's motion for reconsideration, arguing for leniency and claiming simple negligence, was denied.

• Lack of Knowledge and Authority: Respondent claimed he was not aware that documents were being notarized using his name while he was out of the country, asserting that the notarizations were done by his secretary without his knowledge and authority.
• Plea for Leniency: Respondent argued that by admitting and owning up to what happened without wrongful intention, he should be merited with leniency, noting his 21 years of unblemished practice as a notary public.
• Simple Negligence: Respondent contended that he only committed simple negligence which did not warrant the harsh penalty of revocation and disqualification.

• Notarial Negligence: Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country constituted negligence.
• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to his negligence.

• Notarial Negligence: Yes. Respondent was grossly negligent in performing his notarial duty by leaving his notarial seal and register within reach of his secretary, who notarized 18 documents in his absence.
• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 9 and Canon 7 of the CPR, warranting suspension from the practice of law for three months in addition to the revocation of his notarial commission.

• Notarial Negligence: Respondent admitted that the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his secretary while he was abroad. A notary public is responsible for the acts of his secretary. Under Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is a person commissioned to perform official acts, a status his secretary does not hold. Respondent left his office open, his secretary in charge, and his notarial seal and register accessible, fully aware his secretary could use them. This blatant negligence allowed 18 documents to be notarized by an unauthorized person, deceiving the public. His plea for leniency was rejected because his 21 years of experience should have made him more vigilant.
• Administrative Liability: Respondent's failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. As a lawyer, he has a graver responsibility to obey the laws and do no falsehood. He violated Canon 9 of the CPR by allowing his secretary to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. He also violated Canon 7 of the CPR by failing to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, as the public was prejudiced by the sham notarization. Consequently, an additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three months was imposed.

• Notarial Responsibility — A notary public takes full responsibility for all entries in his notarial register and cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by blaming his secretary. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and only qualified persons may act as notary public.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law — Allowing an unauthorized person, such as a secretary, to notarize documents constitutes assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, violating Canon 9 of the CPR.

• "A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi regarding the strict liability of a notary public for acts done in connection with their notarial commission.
• "Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law." — This defines the basis for the respondent's administrative liability as a lawyer under the CPR.

• Judge Laquindanum vs. Quintana, 608 Phil. 727 (2009) — Cited to support the principle that a notary public takes full responsibility for all entries in his notarial register.
• Agbulos vs. Viray, 691 SCRA 1 (2013) — Cited to establish that a notary public's failure to perform his duty undermines the integrity of the notarial function and warrants liability as a lawyer.
• Ang vs. Gupana, A.C. No. 4545 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer-notary public bears a graver responsibility by reason of his oath to obey laws and do no falsehood.
• Agadan vs. Kilaan, 709 SCRA 1 (2013) — Cited to emphasize that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and only qualified persons may act as notary public.
• Talisic vs. Rinen, A.C. No. 8761 (2014) — Cited to underscore that notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties to maintain public confidence.

• Section 9, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines a "Notary Public" as any person commissioned to perform official acts, establishing that a secretary is not authorized to perform notarial acts.
• Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law, which respondent violated.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, which respondent violated by prejudicing the public.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.