Re: Order Dated December 5, 2017 in Adm. Case No. NP-008-17 vs. Atty. John Mark Tamaño

A notary public who fails to record notarized documents in the notarial register, and who delegates that recording duty to unqualified office staff, commits gross negligence and violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from law practice, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment. Failure to record a notarized document is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when it was not.

United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. (UCSPAI), through corporate secretary Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto, obtained notarial services from Atty. John Mark M. Tamaño for its General Information Sheets submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Atty. Tamaño was a commissioned notary public for Bacolod City, Talisay City, Murcia, and Salvador Benedicto in Negros Occidental. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a notary public to record every notarial act in a notarial register and make the notary personally accountable for those entries.

United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. (UCSPAI) is a corporation whose corporate secretary, Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto, later filed the administrative complaint against Atty. John Mark M. Tamaño. UCSPAI required General Information Sheets (GIS) for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, and Atty. Tamaño notarized these GIS. The 2010 to 2013 GIS were executed by Enrique C. Regalado, while the 2014 GIS was executed by Benedicto. According to Benedicto, Atty. Tamaño notarized the GIS without the affiants’ personal appearance; Atty. Tamaño, for his part, maintained that the affiants appeared before him and executed the GIS in his presence.

Atty. Tamaño explained that his office practice was to sign documents after reading them and ascertaining their authenticity and due execution, and then to refer them to his staff for filling in the notarial details and affixing his notarial seal. He claimed that he learned of the unrecorded GIS only when he received a copy of the complaint, after his staff informed him that they had failed to enter the five GIS in his notarial books. He admitted that his office staff committed lapses and that he was responsible for them.

During the preliminary conference, the parties stipulated that Atty. Tamaño did not record UCSPAI’s GIS for 2010 to 2014 in his notarial register. Certificates issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of Bacolod City and Atty. Tamaño’s notarial books showed that the notarial particulars written on the GIS pertained to different documents: the 2010 GIS particulars (Doc. No. 183, Page No. 36, Book No. 204, Series of 2010) pertained to a Certificate executed by Wilfredo Remula; the 2011 GIS particulars (Doc. No. 312, Page No. 63, Book No. 268, Series of 2011) pertained to a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Julius Caesar Lacson and Jonathan Bayona; the 2012 GIS particulars (Doc. No. 7, Page No. 2, Book No. 307, Series of 2012) pertained to a Contract Extension Agreement executed by Victor C. Go; the 2013 GIS particulars (Doc. No. 279, Page No. 56, Book No. 363, Series of 2013) pertained to a Sworn Statement (RTPL) executed by Atty. Ma. Cecilia Soriano Salcedo Mating; and the 2014 GIS particulars (Doc. No. 170, Page No. 34, Book No. 424, Series of 2014) pertained to a Memorandum of Agreement executed by Ricky Desampasado and Rico C. Catalogo. The GIS themselves were not found in Atty. Tamaño’s notarial register.

In his Answer, Atty. Tamaño averred that Benedicto had admitted in pleadings in related falsification and perjury cases that he signed the 2014 GIS, and therefore could not deny appearing before him or question the GIS’s validity and due execution. He also argued that Benedicto’s alleged non-appearance caused no damage or prejudice and that UCSPAI benefited from the notarized GIS because they complied with SEC requirements. In his later Answer before the Supreme Court, Atty. Tamaño insisted that Benedicto and Enrique Regalado, Sr. accomplished and executed the GIS in his presence, but he admitted serious neglect in attending to his duties as notary public, particularly in not ensuring that the notarized documents were recorded in the notarial register. Benedicto replied that Atty. Tamaño was not worthy of compassion because he violated the Notarial Rules for a continuous period of five years and could not pass the blame to his staff.

The Executive Judge found that Atty. Tamaño failed to record the notarized GIS of UCSPAI for 2010 to 2014 in his notarial register, in violation of Section 2(a), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Office of the Bar Confidant later found that Atty. Tamaño violated his duties as a notary public and a lawyer under Sections 1 and 2(a), Rule VI and Section 1, Rule XI of the Notarial Rules, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, when he assigned to his office secretary the task of recording the notarial acts in the notarial registry book.

• Permanent Revocation of Notarial Commission: Complainant sought the permanent revocation of Atty. Tamaño’s notarial commission.
• Non-Appearance and Misassigned Notarial Particulars: Complainant alleged that Atty. Tamaño notarized UCSPAI’s GIS for 2010 to 2014 without the affiants’ personal appearance and assigned to the GIS notarial particulars of documents he had previously notarized and entered in his notarial register, so that the GIS were not recorded in his notarial books.
• Five-Year Violation and Staff Accountability: In his Reply, complainant averred that Atty. Tamaño was not worthy of compassion because he violated the Notarial Rules for a continuous period of five years and could not pass to his staff the blame for failing to record the GIS.

• Due Execution and Validity of the 2014 GIS: Atty. Tamaño averred that Benedicto admitted in pleadings in related falsification and perjury cases that he signed the 2014 GIS, and thus Benedicto could not deny appearing before him or question the GIS’s validity and due execution.
• No Damage or Prejudice; Benefit to UCSPAI: He argued that Benedicto’s alleged non-appearance caused no damage or prejudice and that UCSPAI benefited from the notarized GIS, which complied with SEC requirements.
• Staff Oversight and Office Practice: He claimed that he learned of the unrecorded GIS only upon receiving the complaint, that his staff failed to enter the five GIS in his notarial books, and that his office practice was to sign after reading and ascertaining authenticity and due execution and then refer the documents to his staff for notarial details and sealing; he admitted staff lapses and his responsibility for them.
• Affiants Appeared Before Him: In his Answer before the Supreme Court, he insisted that Benedicto and Enrique Regalado, Sr. accomplished and executed the GIS in his presence, while admitting serious neglect in not ensuring recordation.

• Failure to Record Notarized GIS: Whether Atty. Tamaño violated Section 2(a), Rule VI and Section 1, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to record UCSPAI’s GIS for 2010 to 2014 in his notarial register.
• Delegation of Notarial Recording Duty: Whether Atty. Tamaño violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating to his office staff the recording of notarial acts in his notarial register.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the OBC’s recommended penalty of two years’ suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public should be imposed, or a different penalty should be meted out.

• Failure to Record Notarized GIS: Yes. Failure to make proper entries in the notarial register violates Section 2(a), Rule VI and Section 1, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules and constitutes gross negligence.
• Delegation of Notarial Recording Duty: Yes. Delegating the recording duty to office staff violates Rule 9.01, Canon 9 and Canon 1 of the CPR; the notary is personally accountable for all entries.
• Proper Penalty: Modified. The Court imposed suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of the incumbent notarial commission, if any, disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years, and a warning.

• Failure to Record Notarized GIS: Section 2, Rule VI requires the notary to record at the time of notarization the entry and page number, date and time, type of act, title or description, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, witnesses, fee, address of notarization if not in the regular place, and other relevant circumstances. Section 2(e) requires the notary to give the instrument a number corresponding to the register and state the page/s, with no blank line between entries. Under Section 1, Rule XI, failure to make proper entries is a ground for revocation of commission or administrative sanctions. Atty. Tamaño did not deny notarizing the five GIS and even stated the affiants appeared before him, but he failed to record them. He assigned the notarial details of the GIS for 2010 to 2014 to five distinct documents, as shown by the Clerk of Court certificates and notarial books: the 2010 GIS details pertained to a Certificate executed by Wilfredo Remula; 2011 to a Deed of Absolute Sale by Julius Caesar Lacson and Jonathan Bayona; 2012 to a Contract Extension Agreement by Victor C. Go; 2013 to a Sworn Statement (RTPL) by Atty. Ma. Cecilia Soriano Salcedo Mating; and 2014 to a Memorandum of Agreement by Ricky Desampasado and Rico C. Catalogo. The GIS were therefore not in the register. Notarization is not empty, meaningless, or routinary but invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public one admissible without further proof of authenticity and due execution. As held in Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, the notarial registry is a record of the notary’s official acts; if the document does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy, doubt arises that it was notarized, and failure to record is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized. Atty. Tamaño’s failure was inexcusable and gross negligence, violating Canon 1 of the CPR. His claim of staff oversight is no excuse because the law charges notaries public with recording the necessary information and makes them personally accountable for all entries. His delegation of the recording function to office staff also violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR. The argument that UCSPAI benefited from the notarized GIS is not a justification, because the principal function of a notary is to authenticate documents and public confidence in notarized deeds is undermined by such failures.
• Delegation of Notarial Recording Duty: Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR 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. Recording notarial acts in the notarial register is a duty imposed by law on the notary public, and Atty. Tamaño’s delegation of that function to his office staff was a direct violation. The notary public is personally accountable for all entries in the notarial register; staff oversight cannot shift that responsibility. The Court thus found violations of the 2004 Rules and Canons 1 and 9 of the CPR.
• Proper Penalty: The OBC recommended suspension for two years and perpetual disqualification. The Court noted that in prior cases lawyers remiss in notarial duties were penalized with revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from law practice. In Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, the lawyer was suspended for six months, his notarial commission revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment. In Dr. Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, the lawyer was suspended for six months, disqualified for two years, and her commission revoked. In Sps. Chambon vs. Ruiz, the lawyer was perpetually disqualified, suspended for one year, and his commission revoked. In Roa-Buenafe vs. Lirazan, the lawyer was suspended for one year, his commission revoked, and he was disqualified for two years. Considering that five GIS were notarized using notarial details similar to other documents over a continuous five-year period and were submitted to the SEC, the Court modified the OBC’s recommendation and imposed one year suspension, revocation of the incumbent notarial commission if any, and disqualification from reappointment for two years, with a warning.

• Notarization as a substantive public interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution. The Court applied this to stress the importance of the notary’s recording duty.
• Duty to record every notarial act — Under Section 2(a), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the notary shall record at the time of notarization the entry and page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description, name and address of each principal, competent evidence of identity, witnesses, fee, address of notarization if not in the regular place, and other relevant circumstances. Section 2(e) requires the instrument to bear the corresponding register number and page/s, with no blank line between entries. Failure to make proper entries is a ground for revocation of the commission or administrative sanctions under Section 1, Rule XI.
• Personal accountability of the notary public — The notary public is personally accountable for all entries in the notarial register. The duty to record cannot be delegated to office staff, and staff oversight is not an excuse for non-compliance. The Court found Atty. Tamaño grossly negligent for failing to record five notarized GIS.
• Prohibition against delegation of legal tasks — 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. Delegating the recording of notarial acts to office staff violates this rule.
• Failure to record as false notarization — The notarial registry is the record of the notary’s official acts. If a document does not appear in the notarial records and no copy exists, doubt arises that it was notarized. Failure to record a notarized document is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when it was not.
• Canon 1 duty to uphold the law — A lawyer must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. By failing to comply with the Notarial Rules, Atty. Tamaño violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalties for notarial violations — Lawyers remiss in their duties as notaries public may be penalized with revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law. The Court imposed one year suspension, revocation of the incumbent commission, and two years’ disqualification.

• "Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution." — This opening statement establishes the evidentiary significance of notarization and frames the public interest underlying the notary’s duties.
• "The notary public's failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for the revocation of his commission or imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions." — This states the controlling rule on the consequence of failing to record notarial acts.
• "Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not." — This passage, quoted from Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, supplies the rationale for treating non-recording as a serious violation.
• "Clearly, notaries public must cause the personal recordation of every notarial act in the notarial books since they are personally accountable for all entries in their notarial register." — This defines the non-delegable, personal nature of the recording duty and rejects the staff-oversight excuse.

• Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002) — The Court relied on this precedent for the rule that the notarial registry is the record of the notary’s official acts and that failure to record a notarized document is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized. It also imposed six months’ suspension, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment.
• Dr. Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017) — Cited for the violations of assigning the same notarial details to two distinct documents and delegating the recording of entries to staff; the penalty was six months’ suspension, two years’ disqualification, and revocation of the notarial commission.
• Sps. Chambon vs. Ruiz, 817 Phil. 712 (2017) — Cited for notarizing an incomplete notarial document and delegating the entry-recording duty to a secretary; the lawyer was found doubly negligent, and the acts constituted dishonesty, warranting perpetual disqualification, one year suspension, and revocation of the notarial commission.
• Roa-Buenafe vs. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019 — Cited as recent jurisprudence where the lawyer delegated notarization to his secretary and failed to explain the absence of copies of notarized documents; the penalty was one year suspension, revocation of the incumbent notarial commission, and two years’ disqualification from reappointment. The Court used this case in modifying the OBC’s recommended penalty.
• Almario vs. Agno, A.C. No. 10689, January 8, 2018; Villaflores-Puza vs. Atty. Arellano, 811 Phil. 313 (2017); Mariano vs. Atty. Echanez, 785 Phil. 923 (2016) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest.
• Gaddi vs. Atty. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810 (2014) — Cited for the rule that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible without further proof of authenticity and due execution.
• Arrieta vs. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932 (1997) — Cited for the concern that failure to observe notarial requirements undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.
• Fire Officer I Sappayani vs. Atty. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1 (2015) — Cited for the range of disciplinary penalties imposed on lawyers remiss in their duties as notaries public: revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

• Section 2(a), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry 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, witnesses, fee, address of notarization if not in the regular place, and other relevant circumstances. Atty. Tamaño failed to record the five UCSPAI GIS.
• 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 of the register on which it is recorded, with no blank line between entries. The GIS bore notarial particulars that corresponded to other documents, not to the GIS themselves.
• Section 1, Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that the notary public’s failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for revocation of his commission or imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions. This was the basis for disciplining Atty. Tamaño.
• 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. Atty. Tamaño violated this by delegating the recording of notarial acts to his office staff.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Atty. Tamaño violated this by failing to comply with the Notarial Rules.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.