Paras v. De Paz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Juanito V. Paras (Paras) filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Jonathan J. De Paz (Atty. De Paz) for violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Paras alleged that Atty. De Paz notarized a Last Will and Testament of Sergio Antonio Paras, Jr. (Sergio) and an Affidavit of Admission of Paternity recognizing James Gabriel and John Michael, without including Sergio's mother, Arlinda Paras, which constituted preterition. Paras claimed these documents were falsities and forgeries, not recorded in Atty. De Paz's notarial book, and that the signature of Sergio on the Last Will was forged. Procedural History: The complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. De Paz administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice due to admitted inadvertence in not registering the documents. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, proposing a three-month suspension and revocation of his notarial commission. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court to determine if Atty. De Paz should be held administratively liable. The core issue was Atty. De Paz's administrative liability for the acts complained of, specifically his alleged failure to properly notarize and record documents, and his defense that the non-registration was due to his office clerk's inadvertence.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. De Paz should be held administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP with modification as to the penalty. Atty. De Paz was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for three months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being reappointed as a notary public for one year, with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. De Paz should be held administratively liable: The Court held that Atty. De Paz is administratively liable. The act of notarization is impressed with public interest, converting private documents to public ones, and requires notaries public to observe basic requirements with utmost care to preserve public confidence. Atty. De Paz violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by admitting the inadvertence of his office clerk in failing to register the Last Will and the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity in his notarial registry. He also violated the rules by claiming he was not duty-bound to submit a duplicate original copy of the Last Will to the Notarial Section, OCC, RTC-Cebu City, or to retain a copy thereof. The Court emphasized that a notary public cannot escape liability by passing the blame to an office clerk, as the notarial commission is a personal license for which the notary public is solely responsible. Furthermore, his failure to retain the original copy of the Last Will and submit a duplicate original to the Notarial Section contravened Section 2(h), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His conduct also constituted unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and unlawful delegation of duty in violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR. The Court cited Re: Order dated December 5, 2017 in Adm. Case No. NP-008-17 v. Tamano where a similar failure to register notarized documents and imputation of oversight to staff led to disciplinary sanctions.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that a notary public is personally responsible for the correctness of entries in their notarial register, and failure to record a notarized document is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when it was not. This failure engenders doubt on the document's authenticity and public character. Moreover, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public must faithfully observe the rules governing notarial practice, as notarization is impressed with public interest and converts a private document to a public one, requiring utmost care to preserve public confidence in the notarial system.