Pajarillo v. Yanto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Aloysius R. Pajarillo filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The case stemmed from a civil suit where respondent represented the defendants. In their pre-trial brief, defendants alluded to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by respondent, which was later admitted as an exhibit. Complainant discovered that this SPA was not recorded in respondent's notarial registry; instead, a different SPA with the same notarial details was registered. Procedural History: Complainant filed a criminal case for Falsification of Public Documents and the instant administrative case. The RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41, rendered an adverse decision in the civil case. The provincial prosecutor found no probable cause for falsification. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint, reversing the Investigating Commissioner's finding of liability, and concluding that the mistake was honest and isolated. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's recommendation for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. What are the appropriate sanctions for the violation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, his notarial commission, if still existing, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of one year. He is likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that notarization is not a mere routinary act but one that converts a private document into a public document, requiring utmost care from notaries public. Section 1, Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice mandates that notaries public shall keep and maintain a chronological official notarial register. Section 2, Rule VI requires that every notarial act must be registered, detailing specific information such as the entry number, date, time, type of act, description of the instrument, names and addresses of principals, and competent evidence of identity. Furthermore, Section 2(e), Rule VI mandates that each instrument notarized must bear a number corresponding to the register and the page number where it is recorded. In this case, there was a stark irregularity as two SPAs, intended for different cases, were mistakenly assigned the same notarial details by respondent's staff, and only one was reported to the Clerk of Court. The Court emphasized that lawyers cannot pass the blame to their secretaries or staff for errors in recording notarial information, as commissioned notaries are personally charged with this duty to avoid mistakes. The failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is a ground for revocation of commission under Rule XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court found that respondent's omission violated these rules, thereby tainting the public's confidence in the notarial system. On the appropriate sanctions: The Court reiterated that a notary public who fails to discharge duties is subject to penalties including revocation of commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from practice. By failing to record proper entries, respondent violated not only the Notarial Rules but also Canon 1 of the CPR by failing to uphold and obey the laws and promote respect for law and legal processes. Moreover, delegating the notarial function to an unqualified staff member violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR. Considering the circumstances, the Court found respondent liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer exhibiting disregard for the profession's integrity. While the negligent recording did not cause harm to the complainant's substantive rights and was made without malice, the Court deemed it appropriate to revoke his notarial commission, disqualify him from reappointment as notary public for one year, and suspend him from the practice of law for three months, with a stern warning against future repetitions.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must personally record the notarial details in the notarial register, as delegation of this duty to office staff is a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, potentially leading to revocation of commission, disqualification, and suspension from the practice of law.