Angeles v. Bagay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case arose from a June 11, 2008 letter by Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. reporting that 18 documents bore notarizations under respondent Atty. Renato C. Bagay's name during a period when respondent was outside the country (departed March 13, 2008 and returned April 8, 2008). The documents were said to have been notarized in respondent's office and affidavits attached indicated that the signatory did not personally sign and that the secretary or pre-signed documents were involved. Verification from the Bureau of Immigration showed the respondent's absence from the country for the stated period. Procedural History: The Executive Judge referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Bataan Chapter and ultimately to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The Court required respondent to comment; respondent admitted the notarizations occurred in his absence and asserted his secretary applied his signature and seal without his knowledge. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent's letter not fully verified but observed striking similarity between respondent's signature and signatures on the documents; the Commissioner found negligence in employing and leaving an untrained secretary with access to the notarial seal and register and recommended revocation of respondent's notarial commission and a two-year disqualification. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation in its Resolution dated September 28, 2013 and denied respondent's motion for reconsideration on May 4, 2014. The matter was endorsed to the Office of the Chief Justice and resulted in this Court's decision. The Petition: The Court was asked to determine whether the notarization of documents by respondent's secretary while respondent was abroad constituted negligence and what disciplinary measures, if any, were appropriate.
Issue(s)
Whether the notarization of documents by respondent's secretary while respondent was out of the country constituted negligence. Whether the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and two-year disqualification is appropriate. Whether respondent also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and, if so, what additional disciplinary sanction is warranted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the notarizations effected by respondent's secretary during respondent's absence constituted negligence. The Court revoked respondent's notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years, and imposed an additional suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months, effective upon respondent's reporting receipt of the Decision. The Court directed that copies of the Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the secretary's notarizations constituted negligence: The Court found that respondent admitted the notarizations were performed under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was abroad, and that such admission establishes negligence because a notary public is responsible for acts done under his commission. The Court relied on Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which defines a notary public as one commissioned to perform official acts, noting that a secretary is not commissioned and therefore is unauthorized to perform notarial acts. The Court emphasized that respondent left his office accessible, left his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, and by so doing failed to secure the notarial apparatus entrusted to him. Applying the principle in Judge Laquindanum v. Quintana that a notary public bears full responsibility for entries in his notarial register, the Court held that respondent cannot shift responsibility to his secretary. The Court further observed that respondent's explanation that the secretary was unaware of the import of notarizations was implausible and that such carelessness could not be tolerated because notarization serves a significant public interest in converting private documents into public ones. On Whether revocation and two-year disqualification are appropriate: The Court determined that the gravity of allowing an unauthorized person to notarize documents, thereby deceiving the public and undermining confidence in public instruments, warrants strong disciplinary measures. The IBP Investigating Commissioner had recommended revocation and two-year disqualification after finding that respondent's negligence permitted abuse of his notarial authority; the IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation and the Court found no cogent reason to lessen the sanction. The Court considered respondent's length of service and previous clean record but concluded that his experience should have made him more vigilant, not less; therefore, leniency was not merited. The Court noted precedent, including Agbulos v. Viray and Agadan v. Kilaan, highlighting the public interest in maintaining integrity in notarial acts and the propriety of strict sanctions where the public is prejudiced. Consequently, the Court affirmed revocation and the two-year disqualification as appropriate to protect the public interest in the reliability of public documents. On Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the additional sanction: The Court held that respondent violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for allowing an unauthorized person to perform notarial acts, effectively permitting unauthorized practice, and Canon 7 for failing to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The Court reasoned that because respondent is both a lawyer and a notary public, a graver responsibility rests upon him by reason of his oath to obey the law and do no falsehood. Applying Agbulos v. Viray and Ang v. Gupana, the Court treated respondent's negligence as a breach of professional duty warranting discipline beyond revocation of the notarial commission. Considering the totality of facts and need to deter similar conduct, the Court imposed an additional three-month suspension from the practice of law. The Court stressed that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that violations undermining public confidence call for effective disciplinary measures.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is responsible for acts performed under his notarial commission, including notarizations effected by his secretary in his absence; such negligence constitutes a violation of notarial duties and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law.