Orenia III vs. Gonzales

A notary public who fails to make the proper entry in his notarial register and assigns erroneous notarial details to a notarized document is administratively liable and shall suffer the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales acted as counsel for Domingo C. Reyes, one of the owners of Anaped Estate, Inc. (Anaped). Through Atty. Gonzales, Reyes and his siblings filed a criminal complaint for falsification against the employers of Rodolfo L. Orenia III. In retaliation, Orenia filed a counter-complaint for estafa through falsification against Reyes and his siblings, as well as the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Gonzales.

Rodolfo L. Orenia III filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline. Orenia alleged that on December 28, 1998, Atty. Gonzales notarized a Deed of Sale executed by Antonio A. Guanzon, recording it in his notarial registry as Doc. No. 305; Page No. 62; Book No. 10; Series of 1998. The following day, December 29, 1998, Atty. Gonzales notarized a Director's Certificate and assigned it the exact same notarial details as the Deed of Sale, while failing to record it in his notarial register. Orenia further claimed that Atty. Gonzales participated in the falsification of the Director's Certificate because it was never authorized by Anaped's Board of Directors, and that the parties could not have personally signed it in Atty. Gonzales' presence. Orenia also accused Atty. Gonzales of misrepresenting himself as Corporate Secretary of Anaped and of conduct unbecoming a lawyer for attempting to hit him and calling him "ulol ka" during a preliminary investigation.

In his Answer, Atty. Gonzales admitted failing to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register, attributing the omission to the inadvertence of his former secretary. He denied the other allegations, claiming the disbarment case was a harassment suit meant to force him to drop the cases against Orenia's employers. During the mandatory conference before the IBP, only Atty. Gonzales appeared, as Orenia failed to attend or submit his Position Paper despite being ordered to do so. Atty. Gonzales also presented an undated Affidavit of Undertaking purportedly executed by Orenia, offering to dismiss the case in exchange for money.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, recommending a six-month suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. On motion for partial reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors deleted the suspension but maintained the revocation and a two-year disqualification. The Supreme Court adopted the findings but modified the penalty.

• Failure to Record Notarial Register: Complainant alleged that Atty. Gonzales failed to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register and assigned it the same notarial details as a prior document.
• Falsification and Misrepresentation: Complainant averred that Atty. Gonzales participated in the falsification of the Director's Certificate, which was never authorized by the board, and misrepresented himself as Corporate Secretary of Anaped.
• Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer: Complainant accused Atty. Gonzales of attempting to hit him and uttering "ulol ka" during a preliminary investigation.

• Secretarial Negligence: Respondent argued that his failure to record the Director's Certificate and the assignment of erroneous notarial details were due to the inadvertence of his former secretary.
• Harassment Suit: Respondent maintained that the disbarment case was a harassment suit intended to force him to drop the criminal cases he was handling against the complainant's employers.
• Affidavit of Undertaking: Respondent submitted an undated Affidavit of Undertaking purportedly executed by the complainant, offering to dismiss the case and provide information against his employers in exchange for money.

• Administrative Liability for Notarial Practice: Whether Atty. Gonzales is administratively liable for failing to record a notarized document in his notarial register and assigning it erroneous notarial details.
• Delegation of Notarial Duties: Whether a notary public can evade liability for failure to record notarial acts by attributing the negligence to a secretary.
• Other Allegations: Whether Atty. Gonzales is liable for the other allegations of falsification, misrepresentation, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.

• Administrative Liability for Notarial Practice: Yes. Failure to enter a notarial act in one's notarial register and the assignment of erroneous notarial details constitute dereliction of a notary public's duties warranting administrative sanctions.
• Delegation of Notarial Duties: No. A notary public cannot evade liability by passing the negligence to a secretary, as delegating notarial functions violates Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Other Allegations: No. The complainant failed to adduce any evidence or participate in subsequent proceedings to substantiate his allegations of falsification, misrepresentation, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.

• Administrative Liability for Notarial Practice: The duties of a notary public are dictated by public policy, requiring the highest degree of compliance with notarial rules to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules requires every notarial act to be registered in the notarial register. Atty. Gonzales admitted he failed to record the Director's Certificate and assigned it the same entries as a Deed of Sale notarized the day prior. This failure undermines the dependability and efficacy of notarized documents, warranting the revocation of his commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Delegation of Notarial Duties: Atty. Gonzales attributed his failure to his former secretary's inadvertence. However, the duty to record entries in the notarial register must be fulfilled by the notary public himself. Delegating this task to an unqualified person directly violates Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, a notary public cannot invoke good faith or evade liability by passing the negligence to a secretary.
• Other Allegations: The IBP Board of Governors correctly brushed aside the complainant's allegations of misrepresentation, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The complainant did not adduce any evidence or documents to support these claims and failed to participate in subsequent proceedings despite being ordered to do so. Without evidence, there is no means for the Court to deliberate and decide upon these issues.

• Duties of a Notary Public — A notary public is mandated to discharge the duties of his office with fidelity, observing the highest degree of compliance with the basic requirements of notarial practice to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. The Court applied this by holding Atty. Gonzales liable for failing to record a notarized document and assigning erroneous notarial details.
• Non-Delegation of Notarial Functions — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing, such as recording entries in the notarial register. The Court held that Atty. Gonzales could not evade liability by blaming his former secretary for the omission.
• Penalties for Notarial Violations — A notary public who fails to discharge his duties is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law, with terms varying based on the circumstances of each case. The Court imposed revocation of notarial commission, disqualification for one year, and suspension from the practice of law for three months.

• "Failure to enter a notarial act in one's notarial register and the assignment of erroneous notarial details in a notarized instrument constitute dereliction of a notary public's duties which warrants the revocation of a lawyer's commission as a notary public." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the administrative liability of a notary public who fails to properly maintain their notarial register.
• "Being the one charged by law to record in the notarial register the necessary information regarding documents or instruments being notarized, Atty. Gonzales cannot evade liability by passing the negligence to his former secretary and invoke good faith." — This clarifies that the duty to maintain the notarial register is personal to the notary public and cannot be delegated to a secretary.

• Roa-Buenafe vs. Atty. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019 — Cited to support the principle that a notary public must observe the highest degree of compliance with notarial practice requirements to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system.
• Agbulos vs. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013) — Cited alongside Roa-Buenafe to emphasize that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public has a responsibility to faithfully observe the rules governing notarial practice.
• Bakidol vs. Atty. Bilog, AC No. 11174, June 10, 2019 — Cited for the rule on the penalties imposed on a notary public who fails to discharge his duties: revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from the practice of law.
• Heirs of Pedro Atilano vs. Atty. Examen, 756 Phil. 608 (2015) — Cited within Roa-Buenafe regarding the duty of a notary public to observe the highest degree of compliance with notarial rules.

• Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization specific information such as entry number, date, type of notarial act, and title of the instrument. Applied to hold Atty. Gonzales liable for failing to record the Director's Certificate.
• Section 1(b)(2), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of a notary public who fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts. Applied as the basis for revoking Atty. Gonzales' notarial commission.
• Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Applied to reject Atty. Gonzales' excuse of secretarial negligence.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur. Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.