Pajarillo vs. Yanto

A commissioned notary public who fails to record proper entries in the notarial register for each notarial act, and who delegates that notarial function to unqualified office staff, is liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant Aloysius R. Pajarillo was a plaintiff in a civil case for recovery of ownership and possession with damages, while respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto served as counsel for the defendants in that case. The administrative complaint arose from respondent’s notarization of a Special Power of Attorney used in that litigation, and it implicates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Aloysius R. Pajarillo was one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 8028, an action for recovery of ownership and possession with damages pending before the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Norte, Branch 41. Respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto was the legal counsel of the defendants Ronnie Pimentel, George Pimentel, and Roweno Pimentel.

In the pre-trial brief submitted by the defendants, they alluded to a Special Power of Attorney notarized by respondent authorizing Roweno to represent his brothers Ronnie and George in filing the case. The SPA was not attached to the pre-trial brief. During their formal offer of exhibits, the defendants adduced the SPA, and the RTC admitted it. Sensing irregularity in the sudden emergence of the SPA, complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to verify whether such a document existed in respondent’s notarial registry. He discovered that the SPA was not recorded in respondent’s notarial registry. Instead, a different SPA was registered bearing the same document number, page number, book number, and series.

This impelled complainant to file a criminal case against respondent for Falsification of Public Documents before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. He also lodged the instant administrative disciplinary case before the IBP, docketed as CBD Case No. 18-5757. In riposte, respondent denied falsifying the subject SPA. He proffered that on 5 February 2015, the defendants went to his office bringing several copies of two different SPAs: one intended for the civil case before the RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41, and the other for a case to be filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Both SPAs contained similar provisions authorizing Roweno to represent his brothers Ronnie and George. The defendants signed the SPAs, and respondent notarized the same. Thereafter, he forwarded the copies of the two SPAs to his office staff. Believing that the documents consisted only of one SPA as they looked identical, his staff assigned only one notarial detail to both SPAs. The copy kept by the staff and submitted to the Clerk of Court for reportorial purposes was the SPA intended for the DENR case. Meanwhile, the copy respondent retained and filed before the RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41 was the SPA for the civil case. Respondent stood pat on his stance that he never falsified the two SPAs.

The RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41 rendered an adverse decision against complainant on the civil case. The provincial prosecutor found no probable cause to charge respondent with Falsification of Public Documents. The IBP Board of Governors found respondent’s mistake honest and isolated, attributed no bad faith to him, and considered credible the affidavits of two members of respondent’s staff who explained the mistake in recording the notarial details of the SPAs. The Supreme Court nevertheless found a stark irregularity in the notarization: only the SPA intended for the DENR case was reported to the Clerk of Court, while the SPA filed before the RTC carried the same notarial details as the first.

• Irregular Notarial Registry Entry: Complainant alleged that the SPA used in Civil Case No. 8028 was not recorded in respondent’s notarial registry; instead, a different SPA was registered bearing the same document number, page number, book number, and series, which showed irregularity in the notarization.
• Falsification and Administrative Violations: Complainant filed a criminal case for Falsification of Public Documents before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and an administrative disciplinary case before the IBP for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice.

• No Falsification: Respondent denied falsifying the subject SPA.
• Honest Staff Mistake: Respondent proffered that the defendants brought two different SPAs on 5 February 2015, one for the civil case and one for the DENR case; because the documents looked identical, his office staff assigned only one notarial detail to both, with the DENR copy submitted to the Clerk of Court and the civil-case copy filed before the RTC.
• No Bad Faith: Respondent maintained that he never falsified the SPAs, and the IBP Board found the mistake honest and isolated, with no bad faith attributable to him.

• Notarial Register Entries: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to record proper entries in his notarial register for each of the two SPAs.
• Delegation of Notarial Function: Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 9.01, Canon 9, by delegating his notarial function to office staff.
• Penalty: Whether the penalties of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law are proper.

• Notarial Register Entries: Yes. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice required respondent to record proper entries for every notarial act and to give each document unique notarial details; failure to do so is a ground for revocation under Rule XI, Section 1(b)(2).
• Delegation of Notarial Function: Yes. Canon 1 required obedience to the Notarial Rules, and Rule 9.01, Canon 9 prohibited delegating to unqualified persons tasks that only a Bar member may perform.
• Penalty: Revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for one year, suspension from practice of law for three months, and stern warning. The penalty was commensurate because the negligent recording caused no harm to complainant’s substantive rights and was without malice.

• Notarial Register Entries: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document admissible without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit. Notaries are therefore obligated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties. Section 1, Rule VI requires a chronological official notarial register. Section 2, Rule VI requires the notary to record at the time of notarization the entry number and page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, name and address of each credible witness, fee, address where notarization was performed if not in the regular place of work, and any other relevant circumstance. Section 2(e) requires the notary to give each instrument a number corresponding to the register and to state the page/s on which it is recorded, with no blank line between entries. From these provisions, the Court distilled that recording all required information is the duty of the commissioned notary, and each document must be etched with unique notarial details. Here, two SPAs involved two separate cases, but only the SPA intended for the DENR case was reported to the Clerk of Court; the SPA filed before the RTC carried the same notarial details. This was a stark irregularity. Respondent could not pass the blame to his secretaries or office staff. Commissioned notaries are charged by law with the obligation to personally record the notarial details to avoid any error that a non-lawyer may commit. Office staff not well-acquainted with the Notarial Rules cannot be expected to labor with the same level of meticulousness as a diligent commissioned notary. Respondent’s omission is a ground for revocation under Rule XI, Section 1(b)(2).
• Delegation of Notarial Function: By failing to record proper entries, respondent violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the CPR. He failed to comply with Canon 1, which requires lawyers to uphold the laws of the land, i.e., the Notarial Rules, and to promote respect for law and legal processes. His delegation to office staff of his notarial function directly violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, which 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. Respondent was liable not only as a notary public who failed to discharge his duties but also as a lawyer who exhibited utter disregard for the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
• Penalty: Jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with terms varying based on the circumstances. The Court found respondent liable for violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPR. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being appointed as notary public for one year. Because his negligent recording of the notarized SPAs did not cause harm to complainant’s substantive rights and was made without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or defraud complainant, a three-month suspension from the practice of law was commensurate. He was also sternly warned.

• Notarization as a substantive public act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit. The Court applied this principle to hold that notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties, and that respondent’s failure tainted the public’s confidence in the integrity of the notarial system.
• Personal duty to record notarial acts — A commissioned notary must personally record in the notarial register all information required by Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice at the time of notarization, and each document must be etched with unique notarial details under Section 2(e). The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent liable because his office staff assigned only one notarial detail to two separate SPAs, and respondent could not pass the blame to non-lawyer staff.
• Non-delegability 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 under Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court applied this doctrine because respondent delegated the recording of notarial details to his office staff.
• Penalties for notarial violations — A notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such may be meted out revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with terms varying based on the circumstances. The Court applied this doctrine by revoking respondent’s notarial commission, disqualifying him for one year, and suspending him from practice for three months.
• Lawyer’s duty to obey laws — Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that respondent’s violation of the Notarial Rules also constituted a violation of the CPR.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage states the foundational rationale for the strict obligations of notaries public and explains why lapses in notarial practice are treated seriously.
• "Commissioned notaries are charged by law with the obligation to personally record the notarial details to avoid any error that a non-lawyer may commit." — This is the Court’s central holding rejecting respondent’s attempt to pass responsibility to his office staff and affirming the personal nature of the notarial recording duty.
• "By failing to record proper entries in the notarial register, respondent not only violated the Notarial Rules but also the CPR." — This passage directly articulates the dual liability of a lawyer-notary for defective notarial recording.
• "Not holding fast to this solemn duty will undermine the public's faith and confidence in the notarial system and the legal profession in general." — This passage supplies the policy justification for the penalties imposed and emphasizes the public-interest dimension of notarial duties.

• Collantes vs. Atty. Mabuti, A.C. No. 9917, 14 January 2019 — Cited in support of the principle that notarization is not a meaningless routine and that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit.
• Orenia III vs. Gonzales, A.C No. 12766, 7 October 2020 — Cited for the rule that violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice taints public confidence in the notarial system and for the range of penalties for a notary who fails to discharge duties.
• Roa Buenafe vs. Atty. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, 20 March 2019 — Cited for the expectation that notaries public observe the highest degree of compliance with basic notarial requirements.
• Re: John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274, 7 October 2020 — Cited among authorities supporting liability for delegation of notarial functions to unqualified persons.
• Rico vs. Madrazo, Jr., A.C. 7231, 1 October 2019 — Cited with Tamaño for the same non-delegation principle.
• Malvar vs. Baleros, A.C. No. 11346, 8 March 2017 — Cited further for the non-delegation principle.

• Section 1, Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires notaries public to keep, maintain, protect, and provide for lawful inspection a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages. Applied because respondent failed to maintain proper entries.
• Section 2, Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number and page number; date and time; type of notarial act; title or description of the instrument; name and address of each principal; competent evidence of identity; credible witness; fee; address; and other relevant circumstances. Applied because respondent failed to record proper entries for each SPA.
• Section 2(e), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to give each instrument a number corresponding to the register and to state the page/s on which it is recorded, with no blank line between entries. Applied because the two SPAs were given the same notarial details.
• Section 1(b)(2), Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Allows revocation of commission or administrative sanctions for failure to make proper entry or entries in the notarial register. Applied as the ground for revocation.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied because respondent violated the Notarial Rules.
• Rule 9.01, Canon 9, 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 because respondent delegated notarial recording to office staff.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan and Singh, JJ., concur.