Orenia v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rodolfo L. Orenia III filed an administrative case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales. The dispute originated from a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Documents filed by Atty. Gonzales' client, Domingo C. Reyes, against the complainant's employers. In retaliation, the complainant filed a counter-complaint for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Mr. Reyes, his siblings, and Atty. Gonzales. Procedural History: The administrative case proceeded before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Despite initial recommendations for dismissal, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this and recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Gonzales. Atty. Gonzales moved for reconsideration, and the IBP Board of Governors subsequently granted his motion in part, deleting the suspension but affirming the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Supreme Court reviewed this resolution. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court following the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution granting Atty. Gonzales' Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The core of the administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzales involved his failure to record a Director's Certificate in his notarial register and assigning it the same notarial details as a previously notarized Deed of Sale. He also faced allegations of participating in the falsification of the Director's Certificate and misrepresenting himself as Corporate Secretary. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the IBP Board of Governors' findings regarding the notarial violations but modified the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Gonzales failed to discharge his duties as a notary public. Whether the allegations of misrepresentation, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer are sufficiently proven.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Board of Governors but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that Atty. Gonzales' notarial commission is revoked, and he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. He is also suspended from the practice of law for three months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to discharge duties as a notary public: The Court affirmed that Atty. Gonzales readily admitted his failure to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register and to assign it different notarial details, using the same entries as the Deed of Sale. His excuse that his former secretary was responsible for the error and the failure to record was rejected. The Court emphasized that a notary public must discharge his duties with fidelity and cannot delegate the recording of notarial acts to unqualified persons, citing Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This failure to make proper entries in the notarial register constitutes dereliction of duty under Section 1(b)(2), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Such non-compliance undermines public confidence in the notarial system. The Court reiterated that jurisprudence provides for the revocation of a notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from practice for such failures. On the allegations of misrepresentation, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer: The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors in brushing aside these allegations for lack of evidence. The complainant failed to adduce any proof to support these claims. Furthermore, the complainant did not participate in the subsequent proceedings despite orders to substantiate his allegations, leaving the Court with no basis to deliberate on these issues.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must discharge the duties of his office with fidelity and faithfully observe the rules governing notarial practice. Failure to record notarial acts in the notarial register and the delegation of such duty to an unqualified person constitute dereliction of duty warranting revocation of the notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.