Re: Fule
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case originated from a decision of the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 34810-R) which referred to the "questionable actuation" of notary public Atty. Octavio D. Fule concerning certain trust receipts. The alleged questionable acts involved apparent intercalations in trust receipts and the failure to enter the names of the executing parties in the notarial registry. Procedural History: Upon receipt of the Court of Appeals decision, the Solicitor General forwarded it to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. Atty. Fule was required to comment, and thereafter, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted a report on March 6, 1987. The Petition: The core of the complaint was that intercalations were made in trust receipts (Exhibits "D", "E", and "F") to make it appear that Isidro Ongsip signed as a party and not merely as a witness. Furthermore, it was alleged that the notary public failed to enter the names of the parties executing the instruments in his notarial registry.
Issue(s)
Whether the intercalations made in the trust receipts constitute falsification. Whether the failure of the notary public to enter the names of the executing parties in his notarial registry constitutes neglect of duty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to DISMISS the administrative case against Atty. Octavio D. Fule, finding no basis for disciplinary action regarding the alleged falsification. However, for his failure to make the appropriate entry in his notarial registry, Atty. Fule was admonished to exercise due care in the performance of his duties as a notary public, with a caution that similar lapses in the future would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of intercalations: The Court found the respondent's explanation satisfactory. The intercalations were made to include Isidro Ongsip as a guarantor, consistent with his having accepted the drafts "jointly and severally." The respondent explained that his clerk-typist typed the acknowledgments, and upon review, he instructed insertions to include Mr. Ongsip's guarantor information, which was done in the presence of Mr. Ongsip and Mr. Sy Chi Eng. The Court noted that Mr. Ongsip presented his residence tax certificate, indicating his role as guarantor rather than a mere witness. The Court of Appeals' conclusion that the intercalations amounted to falsification was not sustained, as the evidence indicated they were made with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Ongsip. The Solicitor General's report concluded that the intercalations did not amount to falsification. On the issue of failure to enter in the notarial registry: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General's finding that the respondent's failure to enter Mr. Ongsip's name in the notarial register, as a person who executed, swore to, or acknowledged the receipts, amounted to neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that a notary public is duty-bound to make such entries and cannot delegate this responsibility. The respondent's explanation that his clerk-typist assisted with the entries due to a great volume of work did not absolve him of this duty. For this specific failure, the Court deemed it appropriate to issue a warning and admonition.
Main Doctrine
While intercalations in trust receipts may not amount to falsification if made with the knowledge and consent of the parties, a notary public's failure to properly record the acknowledgment in his notarial registry constitutes neglect of duty, for which a warning is warranted.