Benedicto v. Tamaño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from a complaint filed by Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto, Corporate Secretary of United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. (UCSPAI), against Atty. John Mark Tamaño for the permanent revocation of his notarial commission. Atty. Tamaño was accused of notarizing UCSPAI's General Information Sheets (GIS) for the years 2010 to 2014 without the affiants' personal appearance and by assigning notarial particulars of previously notarized documents to these GIS, thus failing to record them in his notarial register. Procedural History: The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, revoked Atty. Tamaño's notarial commission. The records were transmitted to the Supreme Court, which docketed the case as a regular administrative matter. The Court initially sustained the revocation and required Atty. Tamaño to show cause why his commission should not be permanently revoked and why he should not be suspended from the practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended the suspension of Atty. Tamaño from the practice of law for two years and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for final action on the OBC's Report and Recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Tamaño violated the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to record the UCSPAI's GIS in his notarial register. Whether Atty. Tamaño's delegation of the recording of notarial acts to his staff constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. John Mark Tamaño guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, Atty. John Mark Tamaño is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is revoked, and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to record the UCSPAI's GIS in his notarial register: The Court held that Atty. Tamaño did not deny notarizing the five UCSPAI's GIS and admitted that the affiants appeared before him. However, he failed to record these GIS in his notarial register. Instead, he assigned the notarial particulars of these GIS to five distinct documents that were properly recorded in his notarial books. Certificates from the Office of the Clerk of Court confirmed that the notarial particulars assigned to the GIS pertained to different instruments executed by other individuals. This failure to record the GIS in his notarial register is inexcusable and constitutes gross negligence in discharging his duties as a notary public. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and due execution. The failure to record a document in the notarial register is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not, thereby undermining public confidence in notarized documents. This act clearly violated his duty under Canon 1 of the CPR to uphold and obey the laws of the land, specifically the Notarial Rules. On whether Atty. Tamaño's delegation of the recording of notarial acts to his staff constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found Atty. Tamaño's excuse of plain oversight by his office staff unacceptable. It emphasized that notaries public are personally charged by law with the recording of necessary information regarding documents they have notarized. Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules explicitly states that "the notary shall record in the notarial register" the details of documents and instruments executed by him. Therefore, notaries public must personally cause the recordation of every notarial act, as they are personally accountable for all entries in their notarial register. Atty. Tamaño's delegation of this function to his office staff is a direct violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person the performance of any task that by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. The Court further stressed that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents, and the failure to strictly comply with the rules on notarial practice degrades this function and diminishes public confidence.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's failure to record notarized documents in his notarial register is inexcusable and constitutes gross negligence, undermining public confidence in notarized documents and violating the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.