CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO [A.C. No.

10695 (3/18/15)]
DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Facts:

Complainant purchased a motorcycle from Emcor Inc. However, Emcor, Inc allegedly failed to cause the
registration under his name. Complainant filed a complaint before the RTC. Eventually, the motorylce was
registered in his name based on 3 documents notarized by Atty. X. The complainant went to Atty Xs office
to have the documents certified, but the latter disowned the documents had ordered his secretary to give the
complainant a copy of his notarial register.

The complainant reiterated to Atty. X that the documents were important in his civil case pending before
the Regional Trial Court. He requested Atty. X to certify the authenticity and veracity of the 3 documents
he obtained from the LTO. He wanted to determine if the documents were duly notarized by Atty X or were
merely fabricated. The Complainant did not receive a reply from Atty. X.

The complainants filed his complaint against Atty X before the IBP-Cebu. He alleges that there were
discrepancies between the 3 documents notarized by Atty X and the entries in his notarial register.

Atty X explains that it was his secretaty who certified the complainants documents despite not being
authorized to do so.

The Investigating Commission of the IBP-CBD recommended Atty Xs suspension for 6 months, and
disqualification as notary public for 2 years. The Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings
of the commissioner but increased the penalty of disqualification as notary public to 4 years.

Atty X filed a Motion for Reconsideration based on the ground that the penalty was excessive, and issued
an apology. The Board of Governors denied the MR but modified the disqualification to 2 years.

Issue:
W/N Atty X is administratively liable

Held:
Yes, Atty X is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register.

Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the public relies on when they encounter
written documents and engage in written transactions. Hence, all notaries public are duty-bound to
protect the integrity of notarial acts by ensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care. In Bote v.
Judge Eduardo, a notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption
of regularity and to contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than
merely preponderant. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the 3 documents on his notarial register,
he cast doubt on the authenticity of complainants documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the
notarial register and the notarial process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.

Atty X also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted. In his Answer to
complainants Affidavit-Complaint, respondent claimed that he certified complainants documents as true
copies. Later, in his Position Paper, he passed the blame to his secretary. This violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct.

Atty Xs secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register. The notarial
commission is a license held personally by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated.

His remorse was displayed after a penalty was recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors. It was not motivated by a realization of a wrong committed on an individual but only
by a desire to temper the penalty. It came too late. He is suspended from practice for 3 months and is
sternly warned, and disqualified as notary public for 1 year.