Bote v. Eduardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Elemar G. Bote and his wife purchased a parcel of land on September 16, 1985. The deed of sale was prepared but notarization was postponed due to incomplete payment. After full payment, the seller presented the deed for notarization to respondent Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo. Respondent erroneously dated the notarization as March 19, 1985, instead of March 19, 1986. This error led to civil and criminal cases against the complainant. Procedural History: Complainant repeatedly requested respondent to rectify the error, but respondent refused. On August 3, 1998, complainant sent a final demand letter with a certified copy of the notarial register, which showed the notarization date as March 19, 1986. Respondent issued a certification stating the deed was notarized on March 19, 1985. Aggrieved, complainant filed an administrative complaint for serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The Petition: The complainant charged respondent with serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct for his malicious refusal to rectify his error in dating the notarization of the deed of sale and for issuing a false certification.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo committed serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct in the notarization of the deed of sale. Whether the respondent's refusal to rectify the erroneous date of notarization and issuance of a certification contrary to the notarial register entry constituted grave misconduct and/or an administrative offense.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo administratively liable for serious neglect of duty. However, due to his death prior to the promulgation of the decision, the administrative complaint was dismissed for humanitarian reasons, and no penalty was imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct: The Court found that respondent was negligent in the notarization of the deed of sale. The records showed that the deed was prepared in 1985, and the vendor's residence certificate was issued on September 16, 1985. Respondent claimed to have notarized the deed on March 19, 1985, but this was impossible as it was six months before the residence certificate was issued. The Court found more convincing the complainant's assertion that the deed was notarized on March 19, 1986, and respondent merely failed to notice that the year '1985' was already typed in. The entry in the notarial register, which stated March 19, 1986, was considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Respondent failed to assail the veracity of this entry, only claiming it was not in his handwriting, which he himself admitted was due to his clerk filling up the entries. Furthermore, the respondent was negligent in notarizing the deed with unfilled spaces and incomplete entries, which made uncertified and fraudulent insertions easy. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantial public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public to maintain public confidence in the integrity of public documents. On the issue of refusal to rectify and issuance of a false certification: While the respondent's actions in refusing to correct the error and issuing a certification contrary to the notarial register entry could be considered grave misconduct, the Court ultimately considered the circumstances. The Court noted that respondent consistently refused to recognize his error after being informed. However, the Court ultimately found that the infraction would not warrant a stiff fine, suggesting a fine of ₱5,000 for simple negligence would have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, the primary consideration for not imposing any penalty was the respondent's death.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care in performing their duties, as notarization is invested with substantial public interest and converts a private document into a public one. Failure to observe basic requirements, such as accurately dating notarizations and ensuring complete entries, constitutes negligence and may render the notary administratively liable. However, administrative liability may be extinguished by the death of the respondent prior to the promulgation of the decision.