Pitogo v. Suello
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR, Inc., which allegedly failed to register it in his name. Pitogo filed a civil complaint against EMCOR, Inc. The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo's name based on three documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello (Suello). Pitogo obtained copies of these documents from the Land Transportation Office and, upon seeking certification from Suello, was allegedly told by Suello that he "disowned the documents." Pitogo later filed an Affidavit-Complaint alleging discrepancies between the documents notarized by Suello and Suello's entries in his notarial register. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Suello's suspension from practice for six months and revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation but increased the disqualification from notary public to four years. Suello filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the penalty was excessive. The IBP Board of Governors partially granted the motion, reducing the disqualification period to two years but maintaining the immediate revocation of his notarial commission. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the findings of the IBP Board of Governors but modified the penalties.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules. Whether the penalties imposed on respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and is sternly warned that any similar violation will be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission is immediately revoked if presently commissioned. He is disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules: The Court found that respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello was administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register. Rule VI of the Notarial Rules mandates that for every notarial act, the notary shall record specific details in the notarial register, including the entry number, date and time, type of act, description of the instrument, names and addresses of principals, and competent evidence of identity. Section 1(b)(2) of Rule XI of the Notarial Rules explicitly states that failure to make proper entries in the notarial register is a ground for revocation of a notarial commission. The Court emphasized that notarial acts lend a badge of authenticity to private documents, and notaries public are duty-bound to protect the integrity of these acts by performing their duties with utmost care. Respondent's failure to properly record the details of the three documents in his notarial register cast doubt on the authenticity of the complainant's documents and the credibility of the notarial process itself. This negligence constitutes a violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondent's shifting explanations regarding who certified the documents—first claiming he certified them and later blaming his secretary—constituted dishonesty and unlawful conduct, also in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court reiterated that a notary public's commission is a personal license and cannot be delegated, making the notary solely responsible for the correctness of the entries in his notarial register. On the propriety of the penalties imposed: The Court, after reviewing the case and considering the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, adopted their findings but modified the penalties. While the IBP initially recommended suspension and revocation, and later modified it to disqualification for four years, and then two years, the Supreme Court found that the penalties of suspension from the practice of law for three months, stern warning, immediate revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year were proper under the circumstances. The Court found that respondent's remorse, expressed after a penalty was recommended, was not motivated by a genuine realization of a wrong committed but rather by a desire to temper the penalty, and thus came too late. The Court cited the case of Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Kilaan, where similar violations were met with a one-year suspension of notarial commission and a three-month suspension from the practice of law, finding these penalties appropriate for the present case.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his notarial register. Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is a violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and may result in the revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.