ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, RESPONDENT.

Angeles versus Bagay

The Case

This is an administrative case in the Supreme Court's disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the Bar. Atty. Aurelio Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, reported to the Executive Judge that Atty. Renato Bagay had notarized eighteen documents during a period when he was physically outside the country. The case matters because it fixes the personal, non-delegable accountability of a notary public for everything done under his seal and signature, and because it shows that a lawyer's negligence in notarial practice carries consequences both on the notarial commission and on the privilege to practice law.

Procedural History

The matter began with a letter dated June 11, 2008 from the Provincial Legal Officer to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan. The Executive Judge referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Bataan Chapter, which endorsed it to the IBP National Office, which in turn endorsed it to the Commission on Bar Discipline. When the Commission's Director asked that the complaint be formalized, the Provincial Legal Officer replied that his letter was not intended as a formal complaint but as a report and endorsement of public documents. The matter was then endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant, and the Supreme Court required the respondent to comment. The Court thereafter referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial duty and recommended revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved that recommendation, and later denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration. The Board's resolution was endorsed to the Office of the Chief Justice, and the case came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

The Provincial Treasurer of Bataan furnished the Provincial Legal Office with eighteen notarized deeds — donations, absolute sales, and an extrajudicial settlement — bearing the respondent's notarial seal. Information had reached the Treasurer that these documents were notarized while the respondent was abroad attending a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico. The affidavits of the persons who caused the notarization carried a common statement: they did not see the respondent sign the documents himself; either the secretary signed them, or the documents came out of the office already signed. A certification from the Bureau of Immigration confirmed that a Renato Bagay departed on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008 — covering the dates of all eighteen notarizations.

In his comment, the respondent claimed he was unaware that documents had been notarized in his name while he was abroad. Upon his own inquiry, he learned that his secretary had done the notarizations without his knowledge and authority, not realizing the import of the notarial act. He apologized for his lapses and said he had terminated the secretary's employment.

Before the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent's own admission established that his negligence in employing a secretary with access to his office, his notarial seal, and his records allowed the abuse. The Commissioner observed that the respondent's signature on his comment appeared strikingly similar to the signatures on most of the attached documents. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation of revocation and two-year disqualification, and denied reconsideration.

Issues

• Whether or not the notarization of documents by the respondent's secretary while he was out of the country constituted negligence on his part.
• Whether or not the respondent's plea of leniency, based on twenty-one years of practice without blemish, warranted a lighter penalty.
• Whether or not the respondent should also be held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility as a lawyer, and suspended from the practice of law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines who may act as a notary public:

A Notary Public refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules.

This definition is decisive: the secretary, not being commissioned, could not perform the official acts of a notary public, and the respondent cannot hide behind her acts.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

By his negligence the respondent allowed an unauthorized person to perform notarial acts, which is assistance in the unauthorized practice of law.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The sham notarizations eroded public faith in the integrity of the profession, which this Canon protects.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered in the affirmative. The respondent admitted that the eighteen documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was abroad. This clearly constitutes negligence, because the respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary. The Court stressed that he left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary in charge, and kept his notarial seal and register within her reach, fully aware that she could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence cannot be countenanced and is far from being simple negligence. A person commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register; he cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.

On the second issue, the Court refused the plea of leniency. His twenty-one years of practice should have placed him on guard and could have prevented possible violations of his notarial duty. By his sheer negligence, eighteen documents were notarized by an unauthorized person and the public was deceived. The penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years is appropriate.

On the third issue, the Court held him liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly affected but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. He violated Canon 9 by allowing an unauthorized person to practice law, and Canon 7 by eroding the faith of the public in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. An additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three months is in order.

Doctrine

A notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility, granted only to those qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notary public takes full responsibility for all entries in his notarial register and is answerable for the acts of his secretary; he cannot pass the blame. A lawyer who, through negligence, permits an uncommissioned person to notarize documents violates Canon 9, which forbids assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, and Canon 7, which commands every lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The penalty may thus be imposed both on the notarial commission and on the privilege to practice law.

Disposition

The Court adopted the IBP recommendation with modification: it revoked Atty. Bagay's notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for three months effective immediately, with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register and cannot pass the buck to his secretary. Examiners use this case on notarial practice and legal ethics — on the non-delegability of notarial acts, on Canon 7 and Canon 9 violations, and on the combined penalties of revocation, disqualification, and suspension.