Guerrero vs. Gonzaga and Gulmatico

The failure to appeal a final and executory decision of an Executive Judge imposing administrative sanctions for notarial violations bars a subsequent, separate complaint based on the same facts before the Supreme Court due to the principle of immutability of judgments and res judicata.

The case arose from two separate complaints filed by Guerrero before the Executive Judge of RTC Bacolod City against two lawyers for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The core allegations involved discrepancies between the notarial details on documents (a deed of sale and a secretary's certificate) and the entries in the lawyers' notarial registries submitted to the Clerk of Court.

• Filed in the Office of the Executive Judge, RTC Bacolod City.
• Executive Judge found both respondents liable, revoked their notarial commissions for six months, and issued a stern warning.
• Complainant's Motions for Reconsideration were denied.
• Complainant did not appeal the Executive Judge's Resolutions to the SC.
• Instead, complainant filed a new Complaint directly with the SC, seeking disbarment.
• The SC referred the case to the IBP for investigation.
• The IBP Board initially recommended an additional six-month suspension from law practice but later reversed itself, finding the complaint barred by finality of the Executive Judge's orders.
• The SC adopted the IBP's final recommendation to dismiss.

• Complainant Guerrero alleged that Atty. Gonzaga notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale on a date she was absent and that the notarial details on the document did not match the registry.
• Guerrero alleged that Atty. Gulmatico notarized a Secretary's Certificate with notarial details that corresponded to a different document in the registry.
• Executive Judge Chua found both lawyers liable for negligence in maintaining their notarial registries, revoked their commissions for six months, and warned them.
• Guerrero sought harsher penalties (permanent disqualification and disbarment) but did not appeal the Executive Judge's orders to the SC within the reglementary period.
• Guerrero then filed the present disbarment complaint with the SC, arguing the Executive Judge's jurisdiction was limited and the penalties insufficient.

• The Executive Judge's sanctions were too lenient and restricted due to her limited jurisdiction.
• The present SC complaint is different because it seeks disbarment based on the respondents' "proclivity for falsehood" and complicity in a fraud scheme, not just notarial violations.
• She was precluded from appealing the Executive Judge's orders due to lack of case numbers and ignorance of the limited jurisdiction.

• The Executive Judge's Resolutions were already final and executory.
• The SC complaint is barred by res judicata and constitutes forum shopping, as it is based on the same facts and seeks a harsher penalty for the same cause of action.
• (Atty. Gulmatico additionally argued the SC lacked supervisory jurisdiction over notaries public under the old Notarial Law, an argument the SC rejected).

• Procedural Issues:
  1. Whether the SC has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
  2. Whether the complaint is barred by the finality of the Executive Judge's orders and the principle of res judicata.
  3. Whether the complainant is guilty of forum shopping.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the respondents should be held administratively liable beyond the penalties already imposed by the Executive Judge.

• Procedural:
  1. Jurisdiction: The SC has constitutional and inherent power to supervise all judiciary personnel, including notaries public. The old Notarial Law provisions granting exclusive supervision to judges were superseded by the 2004 Rules.
  2. Finality & Res Judicata: The complaint is dismissed. The complainant's proper remedy was to appeal the Executive Judge's decision to the SC. Her failure to do so rendered the decision final and immutable. The present complaint, though framed as a disbarment case, is rooted in the same factual allegations (notarial violations) already adjudicated, thus constituting the same cause of action. All requisites of res judicata (final judgment, jurisdiction, identity of parties/subject matter/cause of action, judgment on the merits) are present.
  3. Forum Shopping: While the complaint's refiling technically meets the definition, the SC found no willful and deliberate intent, attributing it to the complainant's ignorance and zeal.
  4. Substantive: The SC did not rule on the merits of the disbarment claim, as the procedural bar was dispositive. It adopted the IBP's recommendation to dismiss for lack of merit.

• Immutability of Judgments — A final and executory judgment can no longer be modified or appealed, even if the modification is to correct perceived errors. Applied here because the complainant failed to appeal the Executive Judge's order.
• Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment) — A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent action between the same parties on the same cause of action. The SC found all four requisites present.
• Supervisory Power of the SC over Notaries Public — The SC's constitutional power of supervision over all courts and personnel includes notaries public, who are also members of the Bar. A breach of notarial rules is also a violation of the lawyer's oath.

• "Complaints against members of the Bar are pursued to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, not for private vendetta."
• "Notarization is not an empty act and is vested with substantive public interest; their failure to strictly adhere with the rules undermines the dependability of notarized documents."
• "From the promulgation of this Decision, the mechanism under Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice shall be deemed superseded by the provisions of Canon VI of the CPRA."

• Re: Order dated January 7, 2020 of Judge Ignacio I. Alajar suspending Atty. Ely F. Azarraga's Notarial Commission for One (1) Year — Cited to show the SC had previously noted the ambiguity in the appeal mechanism under the 2004 Notarial Rules and suggested its amendment.
• Tan v. Atty. Pangan — Cited to support the principle that the power to disbar is exclusively vested in the SC and cannot be delegated to executive judges.
• Orenia III v. Atty. Gonzales — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is a public interest act and failure to comply with rules undermines public confidence.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule XI, Section 1 — The provision allowing an aggrieved party to appeal an Executive Judge's decision to the SC. The SC found the complainant failed to avail of this remedy.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Canon VI — The SC declared that from this decision onward, the procedures under this Canon shall govern complaints against notaries public, superseding Rule XI of the 2004 Rules.
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6 — The constitutional basis for the SC's administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel, which includes notaries public.

• Justice Leonen (Concurring) — Agreed with the ponencia's harmonization of the Notarial Rules with the CPRA. Emphasized that the SC's disciplinary power over lawyers/notaries public is a constitutional administrative function, and the Executive Judge's role should be limited to investigation and recommendation to the SC.

• Justice Caguioa (Concurring and Dissenting) — Agreed with the need to harmonize rules but dissented on the dismissal. Argued the SC could still rule on the CPRA liability, as the respondents' negligence in notarial duties constituted a Less Serious Offense under the CPRA warranting a fine.
• Justice Singh (Concurring and Dissenting) — Argued the complaint should be resolved on the merits. Contended that the term "appeal" in the Notarial Rules should be interpreted broadly to include a certiorari petition, and that the present SC complaint, based on alleged falsehood and fraud (CPRA violations), was a distinct cause of action from the earlier notarial violation complaint.