Valdez v. Hipe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Bernaldo E. Valdez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe for allegedly violating the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant alleged that respondent executed an affidavit stating he notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Verification/Certification) by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe, assigning it specific notarial details (Doc. No. 379; Page No. 76; Book No. XXXI; Series of 2016). However, a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC) dated February 9, 2018, indicated that the said notarial details pertained to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death executed by Helen C. Mesa on April 11, 2016, and NOT the Verification/Certification. Procedural History: The Supreme Court required respondent to file a comment. Respondent admitted executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification, acknowledging he might have failed to include it in his notarial report due to inadvertence and heavy workload. He argued the failure was not in bad faith and highlighted it was his first administrative charge in over eighteen years as a notary public. The Petition: The core of the complaint is the alleged misrepresentation in the notarial details and the failure to properly record the Verification/Certification in the notarial register, as evidenced by the OCC-RTC Certification.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe is administratively liable for violating the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether the failure to record a notarial act in the notarial register constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, his notarial commission, if any, was IMMEDIATELY REVOKED, and he was DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He was STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He was also DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe is administratively liable for violating the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court held that respondent is administratively liable. Notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest, converting private documents to public ones. Notaries public must observe utmost care in their duties to maintain public confidence. The respondent's failure to record the Verification/Certification in his notarial report, as admitted by him and confirmed by the OCC-RTC Certification, constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This omission effectively removed the credit and full faith that notarization generates on notarized documents, causing prejudice to the signatories. On Whether the failure to record a notarial act in the notarial register constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court affirmed that the failure to record a notarial act in the notarial register is a violation. Rule VI, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandates that for every notarial act, the notary shall record specific details in the notarial register at the time of notarization. The respondent's admission and the OCC-RTC Certification clearly showed that the Verification/Certification was not included in his notarial report for the period in question. Furthermore, the same notarial details were assigned to two distinct documents, which is a clear breach of the rules. The principle of res ipsa loquitur was applied, making the respondent administratively liable based on the facts on record.
Main Doctrine
A notary public's failure to record a notarial act in the notarial register constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, undermining public confidence in notarized documents and rendering the notary public administratively liable.