Valdez vs. Hipe

A notary public's failure to record a notarized document in the official notarial register constitutes a dereliction of duty that undermines the evidentiary value of the document and violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting administrative sanctions.

The complainant, Bernaldo E. Valdez, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe. The complaint stemmed from an affidavit executed by the respondent in another case, where he stated that he had notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping on April 11, 2016, under specific notarial details. However, a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC) revealed that those same notarial details were assigned to an entirely different document—an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death—not the Verification/Certification referenced by the respondent.

• Nature of the Complaint: Complainant alleged that respondent violated the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• The Alleged Notarization: Respondent, in an affidavit, claimed he notarized a Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe on April 11, 2016, under "Doc. No. 379; Page No. 76; Book No. XXXI; Series of 2016."
• Official Records Discrepancy: A Certification from the OCC-RTC stated that the cited notarial details referred to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death executed by Helen G. Mesa on the same date, not the Verification/Certification.
• Respondent's Admission: In his Comment, respondent admitted executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification. He acknowledged failing to include it in his notarial report but claimed the omission was due to inadvertence and a heavy workload as a legal consultant. He emphasized his advanced age (78 years old), over 18 years of service as a notary public, and that this was his first administrative charge.
• Lower Court's Findings: The OCC-RTC Certification confirmed the discrepancy, showing the notarial details were assigned to a different document.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Petitioner argued that respondent's failure to record the notarized Verification/Certification in his notarial register and the assignment of duplicate notarial details to two documents constituted a clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Undermining Public Faith: Petitioner maintained that such omissions undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of notarized documents, which are entitled to full faith and credit.

• Inadvertence, Not Bad Faith: Respondent countered that the failure to record the document was not made in bad faith but was a result of mere inadvertence and his heavy volume of work.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent argued that his long service of over 18 years as a notary public, his admission and apology for the mistake, his advanced age, and the fact that this was his first offense should be considered as mitigating factors.

• Liability for Violation: Whether the respondent's failure to record the notarized Verification/Certification in his notarial register and the assignment of duplicate notarial details constitute a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Appropriate Penalty: What administrative penalties are appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

• Liability for Violation: The respondent was found administratively liable. His own admission, coupled with the OCC-RTC Certification, proved that the notarized document was not recorded in his notarial report. This failure amounts to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not properly recorded, thereby removing the credit and full faith that notarization generates. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, as the facts on record sufficiently established liability without need for further investigation.
• Appropriate Penalty: The penalty of suspension from law practice, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public was imposed. The Court considered mitigating circumstances: the single infraction, absence of bad faith, respondent's long service, first offense, acknowledgment of his fault, and advanced age. These factors warranted a degree of leniency, resulting in a one-month suspension and one-year disqualification.

• Substantive Public Interest of Notarization — Notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Consequently, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of their duties to maintain public confidence in notarized documents.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur in Administrative Proceedings Against Lawyers — In disciplinary cases against lawyers, where the facts on record sufficiently provide the basis for determining administrative liability, the Court may dispense with a formal investigation and decide the case based on the evidence at hand.

• "Time and again, the Court has reminded lawyers that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest." — This passage underscores the foundational importance of notarial duties in the legal system.
• "The non-appearance of the document or instrument in the notarial records without any copy therein creates doubt whether such document or instrument was indeed notarized. It also effectively removed the credit and full faith which notarization generates on notarized documents." — This articulates the direct consequence of a notary's failure to maintain proper records.

• Roa-Buenafe v. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019, 897 SCRA 449 — Cited to establish the principle that notarization is of substantive public interest and that notarized documents are entitled to full faith and credit.
• De Vera v. Navarro, A.C. No. 12912, January 18, 2021 — Applied by analogy for the ruling that failure to record a notarized document creates doubt as to whether it was indeed notarized.
• Orenia v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 12755, October 7, 2020 — Cited as an example where the Court imposed penalties for dereliction of notarial duties, and to illustrate circumstances considered in mitigating penalties.
• Rayos v. Hernandez, 558 Phil. 228 (2007) — Cited for the principle that humanitarian and equitable considerations, including a respondent's advanced age, may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

• Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — This provision enumerates the mandatory details that a notary public must record in the notarial register at the time of notarization. The respondent's failure to record the Verification/Certification violated this rule.
• Section 1, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — This provision requires notaries public to keep, maintain, and protect a chronological official notarial register. The respondent's omission breached this duty.

• Justice Hernando
• Justice Zalameda
• Justice Rosario
• Justice Marquez