Soriano v. Basco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Josefina P. Soriano filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Humberto B. Basco for alleged violations of the Notarial Law. Complainant alleged that respondent falsely testified that she personally appeared before him to notarize a Deed of Sale, when she had never done so. Furthermore, a certification from the Clerk of Court indicated that the alleged Deed of Sale was not among the documents submitted to their office. Complainant also noted deficiencies in respondent's notarial register, specifically the failure to indicate witnesses' names and residence certificates, and respondent's failure to provide a copy of the deed despite demand. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner summarized the allegations and the respondent's answer. Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report, recommending the revocation of respondent's notarial commission, reprimand, and warning. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for final action following the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XVI-2004-402. The Court reviewed the findings and recommendation of the IBP regarding Atty. Basco's alleged violations of the Notarial Law.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco violated the Notarial Law in his performance as a notary public. Whether the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors are well-taken.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. The commission of respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco violated the Notarial Law in his performance as a notary public: Yes, respondent Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law. The certification from the Clerk of Court clearly showed that the questioned Deed of Sale, purportedly acknowledged before him, was not among the documents submitted to the said office. Furthermore, the certified true copy of his notarial register disclosed the absence of entries regarding the names of witnesses and the respective Community Tax Certificates of the parties. He also failed to furnish the complainant a copy of the alleged Deed of Sale despite admitting to have retained one for his office file. The respondent delegated the clerical entry to his secretary and evidently failed to check the sufficiency of the notarial entries, which resulted in the omission of crucial data. These omissions constitute a failure to exercise diligence in his responsibilities as a notary public, a clear violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised Administrative Code. On Whether the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors are well-taken: Yes, the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors are well-taken. The Court found that Atty. Basco's violations of the Notarial Law, as detailed in the IBP's report, are sufficiently established. The Notarial Law explicitly mandates the keeping of a notarial register, the recording of all official acts, the entry of specific details concerning instruments, and the furnishing of certified copies. The respondent's failure to comply with these mandatory requirements, including the absence of proper entries and the failure to submit required documents to the Clerk of Court, directly contravenes these legal obligations. The IBP's recommendation for the revocation of his notarial commission, reprimand, and warning is consistent with the gravity of the derelictions and the established jurisprudence on the matter, particularly the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest.
Main Doctrine
A notary public commits a serious breach of duty, warranting disciplinary action including revocation of commission and disqualification, for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the failure to properly record all official acts in the notarial register, to supply certified copies thereof, to enter essential details such as witnesses and residence certificates, to retain copies of notarized contracts, and to forward required documents to the Clerk of Court. Such omissions undermine public trust in notarized documents, which are considered public instruments.