RODOLFO L. ORENIA III, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES, RESPONDENT.

Orenia versus Gonzales

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Rodolfo L. Orenia III against Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a Director's Certificate without recording it in his notarial register, gave it the very same notarial details as a deed he had notarized the day before, and committed other acts of misconduct. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement that the notarial function is personal and non-delegable, and that a lawyer who leaves the entries in his notarial register to a secretary answers for the consequences.

Procedural History

The complainant filed the disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. The Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2015, recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors reversed that recommendation in its Resolution dated August 26, 2016, recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the respondent's notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The respondent moved for partial reconsideration. On May 28, 2019, the Board of Governors granted the motion in part: it deleted the six-month suspension, but affirmed the immediate revocation of the notarial commission and imposed disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which adopted the findings of the Board of Governors but modified the penalty.

Facts

Atty. Gonzales was the counsel of Domingo C. Reyes, one of the owners of Anaped Estate, Inc. Through the respondent, Mr. Reyes and his siblings filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public document and use of falsified documents against Rodrigo C. Reyes and a certain Emerencia R. Gungab, the employers of the complainant. The complainant then filed a counter-complaint for estafa through falsification of public document against Mr. Reyes, his siblings, and Atty. Gonzales. While that counter-complaint was pending with the prosecutor's office, the complainant filed this administrative case for disbarment.

The complainant alleged that on December 28, 1998, Atty. Gonzales notarized a Deed of Sale executed by Antonio A. Guanzon, recorded in his notarial registry as Document Number 305, Page Number 62, Book Number 10, Series of 1998. On December 29, 1998, the respondent notarized a Director's Certificate and assigned it the very same notarial details. He did not record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register. The complainant further alleged that the respondent participated in the falsification of the certificate, misrepresented himself as corporate secretary of Anaped, and, during the preliminary investigation of the counter-complaint, attempted to hit him and uttered the words "ulol ka."

In his Answer, Atty. Gonzales admitted that he failed to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register, which he blamed on the inadvertence of his former secretary, and denied the other allegations, claiming the disbarment case was a harassment suit. He later filed an Omnibus Motion and an Affidavit of Undertaking purportedly executed by the complainant. At the mandatory conference, only the respondent appeared. The complainant never submitted his position paper and did not participate further in the proceedings.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Gonzales is administratively liable for failing to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register and for assigning it erroneous notarial details.
• Whether or not the respondent may escape liability by attributing the omission to the negligence of his former secretary.
• Whether or not the complainant's other allegations of misrepresentation, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer were sufficiently established.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is the appropriate one.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. — (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following: (1) the entry number and page number; (2) the date and time of day of the notarial act; (3) the type of notarial act; (4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding; (5) the name and address of each principal; (6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary; (7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity; (8) the fee charged for the notarial act; (9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and (10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.

This is the rule the respondent violated: every notarial act must be entered in the register at the time of notarization, and the Director's Certificate was never entered at all.

Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 9.01 — 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.

This forecloses the respondent's defense, because recording entries in the notarial register is a task the law reserves to the notary public himself.

Section 1, paragraph b, subparagraph 2, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon any notary public who: (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts.

This is the express ground for revoking the respondent's notarial commission.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is liable. He readily admitted that he failed to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register and that he assigned it the same entries as the Deed of Sale he had notarized the day prior. The Court stressed that the duties of a notary public are dictated by public policy and must be discharged with fidelity, and that failure to make an entry in the notarial register concerning one's notarial acts violates the lawyer's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold and obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for law and legal processes.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the excuse. The delegation to the former secretary of the notarial function of recording entries is a clear contravention of the notarial rules, which require that the duty be fulfilled by the notary public himself and not by anyone else. Being the one charged by law to record the necessary information, the respondent cannot evade liability by passing the negligence to his secretary and invoking good faith.

On the third issue, the Court brushed aside the remaining allegations. The complainant adduced no evidence in support of his claims, and after filing his complaint he did not participate in the subsequent proceedings despite being ordered to do so. There was thus no means for the Court to deliberate and decide upon those issues.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties is meted out revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with terms varying according to the circumstances. It found the revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification for one year, and suspension for three months appropriate.

Doctrine

A notary public must personally record every notarial act in his notarial register at the time of notarization, as required by Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He cannot delegate this duty to a secretary or any unqualified person, for Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer from delegating to an unqualified person any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Failure to make the proper entry in the notarial register, and the assignment of erroneous notarial details to a notarized instrument, constitute dereliction of a notary public's duties and warrant revocation of the commission under Section 1, paragraph b, subparagraph 2, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The negligence of an employee is no defense, because the duty is personal to the notary. The standard penalties are revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with the terms calibrated to the circumstances.

Disposition

The Court revoked the respondent's notarial commission if still existing, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, suspended him from the practice of law for three months effective immediately, and warned him that a repetition of the violation will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the notarial act of recording entries in the register is personal to the notary and cannot be passed to a secretary, so the secretary's negligence is the notary's liability. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and notarial practice questions on the grounds for revocation of a notarial commission and on the proper penalties for a notary who fails to keep his register.