Aquino vs. Pascua

A notary public who fails to enter notarized documents in his notarial register and falsely assigns fictitious document numbers to them is guilty of misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.

The complainants, led by Father Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial Academy, and impleaded respondents in an administrative case before the Civil Service Commission, filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan. The dispute arose from Atty. Pascua's notarization of affidavit-complaints filed against the complainants before the Civil Service Commission. The Notarial Law requires notaries public to enter in their register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before them, and failure to do so is a ground for revocation of commission.

Father Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial Academy, along with Lina M. Garan and several others, filed a letter-complaint dated August 3, 1999 against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan. The complainants were impleaded as respondents in affidavit-complaints filed by Atty. Pascua with the Civil Service Commission.

In the letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents by making it appear that he had notarized the affidavit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B. Domingo, entering them as Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, Page No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998. Father Aquino further alleged that certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, dated June 23 and July 26, 1999, showed that none of these entries appeared in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register. The last entry in the register was Document No. 1200, executed on December 28, 1998, making it impossible for Atty. Pascua to have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998.

In his comment dated September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but claimed they were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary, whose affidavit he attached. The complainants countered that the omission was not inadvertence but a clear case of falsification, noting that the questioned affidavit of Acorda was submitted only when Domingo's affidavit was withdrawn in the administrative case before the Civil Service Commission. This circumstance suggested that Atty. Pascua ante-dated another affidavit-complaint to make it appear as notarized on December 10, 1998. The Office of the Bar Confidant, after investigation, found that Atty. Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavit-complaints, constituting dishonesty. The Supreme Court adopted these findings.

• Falsification of Notarial Entries: Complainants maintained that Atty. Pascua's omission of the notarized documents in his Notarial Register was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification, as he falsely assigned fictitious document numbers and dates.
• Ante-dating of Documents: Complainants argued that Atty. Pascua ante-dated the affidavit-complaint of Acorda to make it appear as notarized on December 10, 1998, given that it was submitted only when Domingo's affidavit was withdrawn in the administrative case before the Civil Service Commission.

• Inadvertence: Respondent argued that the omission of the two documents in his Notarial Register was not intentional but due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was attached to his comment.

• Misconduct: Whether Atty. Pascua is guilty of misconduct for failing to enter notarized documents in his Notarial Register and falsely assigning fictitious document numbers to them.
• Penalty: Whether suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission are the appropriate penalties for the misconduct committed.

• Misconduct: Yes. Atty. Pascua was found guilty of misconduct for failing to register in his Notarial Register the affidavit-complaints he notarized and for falsely assigning fictitious document numbers to them.
• Penalty: Yes. A three-month suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission were imposed, considering it was his first offense and his failure to make proper entries is a ground for revocation under the Notarial Law.

• Misconduct: The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant, which established that the subject documents were not recorded in Atty. Pascua's notarial register. The photocopy of his register showed that the last entry on December 28, 1998 was Document No. 1200 on Page 240, while the two affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 were numbered 1213 and 1214 on Page 243. This discrepancy proved that Atty. Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned documents, constituting dishonesty. The Court defined "misconduct" as wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose, though it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. Atty. Pascua's dereliction of duty as a notary public fell within this definition.
• Penalty: The Court exercised its discretion in imposing the penalty, looking at precedents where similar misconduct was sanctioned. In Arrieta vs. Llosa and Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, a six-month suspension was imposed for first offenses involving notarial violations. In Mondejar vs. Rubia, a one-month suspension was imposed for a false declaration. Considering this was Atty. Pascua's first offense, the Court deemed a three-month suspension from the practice of law appropriate. Since his offense is also a ground for revocation of notarial commission under Section 249, Article VI of the Revised Administrative Code, the revocation of his notarial commission was likewise imposed.

• Notarial Register Requirement — A notary public is mandated by law to enter in chronological order in his notarial register the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, and to give each instrument a number corresponding to the one in his register. Failure to make the proper entry is a ground for revocation of notarial commission. The Court applied this by finding Atty. Pascua liable for failing to enter the affidavit-complaints in his register and falsely assigning them fictitious numbers.
• Misconduct in Legal Profession — "Misconduct" means wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose, though it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. A member of the Bar may be disciplined for misconduct in the performance of his duties. The Court found Atty. Pascua's dishonesty in falsifying notarial entries to constitute misconduct warranting suspension.

• "Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose." — This passage provides the Court's definition of misconduct in the context of legal ethics and notarial duties.
• "A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession." — This underscores the standard of conduct expected of lawyers and notaries public, emphasizing public trust.
• "His failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff." — This establishes the principle that a notary public is strictly liable for the proper maintenance of his notarial register and cannot escape liability by blaming staff oversight.

• Realino vs. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318 — Cited for the principle that notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with formalities and basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
• Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 — Cited as precedent for imposing a six-month suspension for a first offense of notarial misconduct (notarizing a deed knowing vendors were dead).
• Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, 383 SCRA 498 — Cited for revoking notarial commission and suspending a lawyer for six months for violating the Notarial Law by failing to register a notarized deed.
• Mondejar vs. Rubia, 496 SCRA 1 — Distinguished for imposing a lesser penalty of one month suspension for making a false declaration in a notarized document.
• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 409 — Cited for the principle that lawyers must not lessen public confidence in the legal profession; respondent there was disbarred for notarizing a fictitious document due to previous misconduct.

• Section 246, Article V, Title IV, Chapter II, Revised Administrative Code — Requires notaries public to enter in chronological order the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before them, and to give each instrument a corresponding number. Applied to find Atty. Pascua in violation for failing to enter the affidavit-complaints.
• Section 249, Article VI, Revised Administrative Code — States that failure of a notary to make proper entries in his notarial register is a ground for revocation of commission. Applied to justify the revocation of Atty. Pascua's notarial commission.

Ynares-Santiago (Acting C.J.), Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur. Puno, C.J., and Quisumbing, J., on official leave.