Vera v. Navarro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dolores De Vera (Dolores) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Cenon J. Navarro (Atty. Navarro) for failing to furnish the Archive Office of Malolos City, Bulacan, a copy of an Affidavit of Acknowledgment and Use of Surname (Affidavit) executed by Dolores' deceased husband, Manuel De Vera, Jr. (Manuel), on August 7, 2007. Dolores and Manuel had a daughter, Donna Belle, born in 1996, who initially used Dolores' maiden name as they were not yet married. They married in 1998. In July 2007, Dolores discovered Donna Belle's birth certificate only reflected her middle initial and last name. Atty. Navarro prepared and notarized the Affidavit on August 7, 2007, where Manuel acknowledged Donna Belle as his illegitimate child and consented to her using his surname. Procedural History: In 2016, when Donna Belle needed a copy of her birth certificate for employment abroad, she was informed that the Affidavit should be a certified true copy from the Archive Office. A certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Malolos City stated that the Affidavit was not included in Atty. Navarro's notarial report for August 2007. Dolores filed a complaint with the IBP. Atty. Navarro denied notarizing the Affidavit, claiming his signature was forged and demanding the original copy. He also claimed Dolores was conspiring to harass him and that she took too long to rectify the error. The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Navarro guilty of lack of diligence and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the suspension to one month, which was later denied reconsideration. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court to determine if Atty. Navarro should be held administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Navarro is administratively liable for failing to record the Affidavit of Acknowledgment and Use of Surname in his notarial register. Whether Atty. Navarro's defense of forgery and delay in filing the complaint is tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Navarro 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 the issue of Atty. Navarro's administrative liability for failing to record the Affidavit: The Court affirmed the IBP's findings, holding Atty. Navarro liable for dereliction of duty. The Court emphasized that notarization is imbued with substantive public interest, and a notary public must exercise utmost care. The Affidavit bore Atty. Navarro's notarial seal and details, making his denial of notarization questionable, especially since Dolores was able to obtain the notarial details. Crucially, the certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court confirmed that the Affidavit was not included in Atty. Navarro's notarial report for August 2007. This failure to record the act in his notarial register, as mandated by Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, is a serious offense. The Court reiterated that if a document does not appear in the notarial records, doubt is cast upon its notarization, rendering it not a public document. Such failure undermines public confidence in notarized documents. On Atty. Navarro's defense of forgery and delay: The Court found Atty. Navarro's defense of forgery unconvincing. The presence of his notarial seal and details on the Affidavit, coupled with the fact that Dolores could provide these details, cast doubt on his claim. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the delay in rectifying the birth certificate error, noting that Dolores could only act when the need arose, which was when her daughter required the document for employment abroad. Furthermore, Atty. Navarro's offer of financial assistance, despite his denials, was considered significant by the IBP and implicitly by the Court, suggesting an acknowledgment of some responsibility or at least a desire to settle the matter.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's failure to record a notarized document in his notarial register constitutes dereliction of duty, violating the Rules on Notarial Practice, and warrants disciplinary sanctions including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.