Maranan v. Domagoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Socrates G. Maranan (Atty. Maranan) filed a criminal complaint against then Vice Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso (Domagoso) for Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, alleging that Domagoso signed consultancy contracts with individuals who were deceased or out of the country. Domagoso defended by stating he signed upon assurance that everything was in order and pointed out that Atty. Maranan notarized the contracts. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Domagoso and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to determine Atty. Maranan's administrative liability for notarizing the contracts. Procedural History: Atty. Maranan denied authoring or notarizing the contracts, citing discrepancies in his signatures and the absence of the contracts in his notarial reports. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended dismissal for lack of merit. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this, finding substantial evidence of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, holding Atty. Maranan liable due to the presence of his notarial seal on the documents, even if the signatures were dissimilar. They recommended a six-month suspension, two-year disqualification from being a notary public, and revocation of his commission. Atty. Maranan's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for a determination of Atty. Maranan's administrative liability.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Maranan committed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and/or Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to his notarization of the consultancy contracts. Whether grounds exist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors, holding Atty. Maranan administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Atty. Maranan committed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and/or Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to his notarization of the consultancy contracts: The Court held that Atty. Maranan is administratively liable. The act of notarization is imbued with substantive public interest, and a notary public is empowered to perform notarial acts, which convert private documents into public instruments. The Court emphasized that a notary public must exercise utmost care to preserve public confidence in notarized documents. Although the Court noted that Atty. Maranan's signatures on the contracts were dissimilar to his specimen signatures and that the contracts were not in his notarial reports, it found that he could not escape liability because the contracts bore his notarial seal. On whether grounds exist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable: The 2004 Notarial Rules explicitly state that the official seal shall only be possessed by the notary public and must be kept safe and secure, accessible only to the notary public or his duly authorized representative. The Court found that Atty. Maranan failed to provide a justifiable explanation for how his notarial seal was affixed to the contracts, indicating a failure to perform his mandatory duty to safeguard his seal against tampering or misuse. This failure constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial Rules, making him administratively liable. The penalties imposed by the IBP Board of Governors, which included suspension from practice, disqualification from being a notary public, and revocation of his commission, were affirmed by the Court, citing similarity to penalties imposed in a previous case (Ang v. Atty. Belaro, Jr.) for a similar infraction.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is administratively liable for the misuse or unauthorized affixing of his notarial seal on documents, even if his signature appears to be forged, as the responsibility to safeguard the seal rests solely upon him.