Chambon v. Ruiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Andre and Maria Fatima Chambon (Spouses Chambon) were creditors of Suzette Camasura Remoreras (Remoreras), who executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over a parcel of land to secure her loan. The REM was annotated in 2006, and the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29490 was given to Spouses Chambon. As Remoreras failed to pay, Spouses Chambon initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings, with the public auction set for April 27, 2010. Procedural History: Spouses Chambon discovered that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 56, had issued an Order dated March 24, 2008, directing the issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 29490, based on a Petition for Issuance filed by Remoreras alleging a Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss. Subsequently, Remoreras filed a complaint to enjoin the foreclosure, claiming a Release of Mortgage document had been executed by Spouses Chambon. Spouses Chambon found that the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and the Release of Mortgage were notarized by respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz (respondent). They noted defects in these documents and the Notarial Register, specifically the absence of competent evidence of identity in the jurat of the Notice of Loss and their denial of executing the Release of Mortgage. The Petition: Spouses Chambon filed a complaint against respondent for gross violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent denied notarizing the Release of Mortgage but admitted the existence and notarization of the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss, attributing lapses in the Notarial Register to his secretary's negligence. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended revocation of respondent's notarial commission and a four-year bar from being commissioned. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but modified the penalty, revoking respondent's notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment for three years, and suspending him from the practice of law for three years.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz should be administratively disciplined for failing to fulfill his duties as a notary public, specifically regarding the incomplete jurat in the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and the improper accomplishment of entries in his Notarial Register. Whether respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz's admission of inaccurate Notarial Register entries related to the Release of Mortgage, and his act of shifting blame to his secretary, constitute a violation of the Rules warranting administrative discipline. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz, considering his negligence and dishonesty in performing his duties as a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His notarial commission was REVOKED, and he was PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being a notary public. He was also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He was STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Administrative Discipline for Notarial Duties: The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz failed to live up to the duties of a notary public as mandated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court found that the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss, notarized by the respondent, had an incomplete jurat as the competent proof of identity of the executor was left blank, violating Section 5(b) of Rule IV. The entries in the respondent's Notarial Register pertaining to the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss were not properly accomplished, with crucial details left blank. The respondent's defense that his secretary was negligent was rejected, as a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. On the Issue of Administrative Discipline for Inaccurate Notarial Entries and Shifting Blame: The Court found that the respondent's admission of inadvertence and delegation of duty, even concerning the accuracy of entries related to the Release of Mortgage, also constituted a violation of the Rules. The respondent's act of shifting blame to his secretary demonstrated dishonesty towards the Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that a notary public carries a duty imbued with public interest and must be constantly vigilant regarding their responsibilities. On the Issue of Imposition of Penalty: Guided by jurisprudence, the Court deemed it proper to impose the penalty of revocation of the notarial commission and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public, along with a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The Court found the respondent's actions, particularly his admission of delegating his notarial register duties and the resulting inaccuracies, to constitute dishonesty warranting perpetual disqualification. The penalty was considered just and proper given the respondent's dual negligence in performing his duties.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot delegate this responsibility to his secretary. Failure to properly accomplish the notarial register and affixing a signature on an incomplete notarial certificate constitute violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.