Aquino v. Pascua
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 3, 1999, Father Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), and several other complainants filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan. The complainants alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents by making it appear that he had notarized the 'Affidavit-Complaint' of Joseph B. Acorda (Doc. No. 1213) and Remigio B. Domingo (Doc. No. 1214) on December 10, 1998. These affidavits were used in administrative cases filed by Atty. Pascua against the complainants before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Procedural History: The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao certified that neither document appeared in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register. The register showed that the last entry for the year was Document No. 1200, executed on December 28, 1998, making it impossible for Document Nos. 1213 and 1214 to have been notarized on December 10, 1998. Atty. Pascua admitted notarizing the documents but claimed the failure to record them was due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation. The Petition: The complainants filed a motion to join the complaint, maintaining that the omission was not simple inadvertence but a clear case of falsification and dishonesty. They argued that Atty. Pascua assigned fictitious numbers to the affidavits to give them a semblance of validity for use in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) proceedings. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended the revocation of Atty. Pascua's notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law for six months, finding his defense of secretary oversight incredible and his actions a breach of the sacred duties of a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Edwin Pascua is liable for misconduct for failing to record notarized documents in his Notarial Register and for assigning inconsistent document numbers.
Ruling
Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. His notarial commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Misconduct: The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure of a notary public to enter documents in the Notarial Register is a serious dereliction of duty that warrants administrative sanctions. Applying Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), the Court noted that the chronological recording of instruments is mandatory to ensure the integrity of notarial acts. The Court rejected Atty. Pascua's defense that the omission was due to his secretary's oversight, ruling that a notary is personally responsible for the accuracy of their register and is bound by the actions of their staff. Furthermore, the Court found that the document numbers assigned to the affidavits (1213 and 1214) were physically impossible given that the last entry in the register on a later date was only Document No. 1200. This discrepancy indicated a clear case of dishonesty and falsification rather than simple inadvertence. Consequently, the Court determined that such conduct constitutes 'misconduct,' which justifies the revocation of the notarial commission and a period of suspension from the practice of law to maintain the public's trust in the legal profession.
Main Doctrine
The act of notarization is not a mere empty routine but a function invested with public interest, requiring a notary public to exercise the highest degree of diligence. Under the Notarial Law, specifically the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), a notary is strictly required to maintain a Notarial Register and record all acts in chronological order with corresponding document numbers. Failure to comply with these recording requirements constitutes professional misconduct, for which the notary is personally liable regardless of whether the omission was caused by a staff member's oversight. This doctrine reinforces the principle that the integrity of public documents depends on the strict adherence of notaries to their administrative and ethical duties.