5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

THIRD DIVISION

[ A.C. No. 13332. August 10, 2022 ]

ALOYSIUS R. PAJARILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARCHIMEDES

O. YANTO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

DIMAAMPAO, J.:

This administrative disciplinary case involves the Complaint[1] filed by complainant

Aloysius R. Pajarillo against respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules on Notarial Practice.

The diegesis of the case is synthesized as follows:

Complainant was one of the plaintiffs in a civil case for recovery of ownership and
possession with damages then pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Camarines Norte, Branch 41, docketed as Civil Case No. 8028. Respondent, on the
other hand, was the legal counsel of therein defendants Ronnie Pimentel (Ronnie),
George Pimentel (George), and Roweno Pimentel (Roweno).[2]

In the pre-trial brief submitted by defendants for Civil Case No. 8028, they alluded to a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by respondent authorizing Roweno to
represent his brothers, Ronnie and George, in filing the case. The SPA, however, was
not attached to the pre-trial brief. During their formal offer of exhibits, defendants
adduced the SPA, which the RTC admitted. Sensing irregularity in the sudden
emergence of the SPA, complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to verify
whether such a document existed in respondent's notarial regist1y. Complainant
discovered that the SPA was not recorded in the notarial registry of respondent.
Instead, a different SPA was registered bearing the same document number, page
number; book number, and series.[3] This impelled complainant to file a criminal case
against respondent for Falsification of Public Documents before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. He also lodged the instant administrative disciplinary case before
the IBP docketed as CBD Case No. 18-5757.

In riposte, respondent refuted the allegation against him. He denied falsifying the
subject SPA.[4] Instead, he proffered that on 5 February 2015, defendants, his clients,
went to his office bringing several copies of two different SPAs: one intended for the
civil case before the RTC of Camarines Norte Branch 41, and the other for a case to be
filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Both SPAs
contained similar provisions authorizing Roweno to represent his brothers, Ronnie and

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 1/6
5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

George.[5]

As it happened, defendants signed the SPAs and respondent notarized the same.
Thereafter, he forwarded the copies of the two SPAs to his office staff. Believing that
the documents consisted only of one SPA as they looked identical, his staff assigned
only one notarial detail to both SPAs. The copy which was kept by the staff and
submitted to the Clerk of Court for reportorial purposes was the SPA intended for the
DENR case. Meanwhile, the copy which respondent retained and filed before the RTC of
Camarines Norte, Branch 41 was the SPA for the civil case. Respondent stood pat on
his stance that he never falsified the two SPAs.[6]

Ensuingly, the RTC of Camarines, Norte, Branch 41 rendered an adverse decision

against complainant on the civil case.[7] On the other hand, the provincial prosecutor
found no probable cause to charge respondent with Falsification of Public Documents.[8]

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP

On 5 June 2021, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued a Resolution[9]

recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against respondent.
The IBP Board reversed the ruling of the Investigating Commissioner finding
respondent liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Board was
convinced that since respondent's mistake was honest and isolated, no bad faith may
be attributed to him. Likewise considered credible were the affidavits of the two
members of respondent's staff who explained the mistake in recording the notarial
details of the SPAs.

RULING OF THE COURT

This Court deviates from the IBP's dismissal of the Complaint. Respondent must be held
liable for his violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPR.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarization by a notary

public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit, and as such, notaries public are obligated to observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[10] A
violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice taints the public's confidence in the integrity
of the notarial system.[11]

In keeping with the faithful observance of their duties, notaries public shall keep,
maintain, protect, and provide for lawful inspection, a chronological official notarial
register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages.
[12] Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules requires that every notarial act must be

registered in the notarial register, viz.:

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the
notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 2/6
5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

following:

(1) the entry number and page number;

(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;

(3) the type of notarial act;

(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or

proceeding;

(5) the name and address of each principal;

(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules

if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;

(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or

affirming the person's identity;

(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;

(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in

the notary's regular place of work or business; and

(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of

significance or relevance. (Emphasis supplied.)

Further, Section 2(e), Rule VI of the same Rules requires that:

(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the
one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or
document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded.
No blank line shall be left between entries. (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing provisions of the Notarial Rules, it can be distilled that: one, the act
of recording in the notarial register all information that needs to be recorded is the
duty of a commissioned notary; and two, each document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before notaries public is etched with unique notarial details.

Here, there was a stark irregularity in the notarization of the SPAs. Instead of affixing
different notarial details for each of the two documents, which involved two separate
cases, respondent's office staff mistakenly thought that only one and the same
document was notarized. Thus, only the SPA intended for the DENR case was reported
to the Clerk of Court. The SPA filed before the RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41
carried the same notarial details as the first.

In a plethora of cases, the Court reminded lawyers that they cannot simply pass the
blame to their secretaries and office staff whenever there are errors in recording the

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 3/6
5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

necessary information regarding documents or instruments they have notarized.

Commissioned notaries are charged by law with the obligation to personally record
the notarial details to avoid any error that a non-lawyer may commit. Verily, the office
staff or secretary who is not well-acquainted with the Notarial Rules cannot be expected
to labor with the same level of meticulousness that a diligent commissioned notary
would exhibit out of fear of possible revocation or suspension of his or her notarial
commission.

Notaries public are expected to observe the highest degree of compliance with the basic
requirements of notarial practice in order to preserve public confidence in the integrity
of the notarial system.[13]

Discernibly, respondent's omission is a ground for the revocation of his notarial

commission-

RULE XI

Revocation of Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions

SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive

Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or
impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:

xxxx

(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register
concerning his notarial acts;

x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

Jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is
meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2)
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the
practice of law - the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case.[14]

By failing to record proper entries in the notarial register, respondent not only violated
the Notarial Rules but also the CPR. Specifically, he failed to comply with his duty under
Canon 1 of the CPR to uphold and obey the laws of the land, i.e., the Notarial Rules,
and to promote respect for law and legal processes. So, too, respondent's delegation to
the office staff of his notarial function is a direct violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the
CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar
in good standing."[15]

Based on the circumstances obtaining in the case at bench, respondent should be made
liable not only as a notary public who failed to discharge his duties as such but also as

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 4/6
5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

a lawyer who exhibited utter disregard for the integrity and dignity owing to the legal
profession.

It cannot be stressed enough that notarial duties, as with lawyer duties, ought to be
carried out with not just a modicum of competence. When lawyers applied to be
commissioned notaries, and when they were subsequently appointed as such, they
swore under oath to preserve the sanctity of the notarial process. The legal effect of
notarization - how it transforms a private document into a self-authenticating public
document that provides evidentiary convenience - should constantly remind notaries
public that there is a need on their part to be particularly thorough in keeping the
accuracy, integrity, and truthfulness of their notarial records. Not holding fast to this
solemn duty will undermine the public's faith and confidence in the notarial system and
the legal profession in general.

In synthesis, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of the Rules on Notarial
Practice and the CPR. Consequently, his notarial commission is revoked, and he is
hereby disqualified from being appointed as notary public for one year. Considering that
respondent's negligent recording of the notarized SPAs did not cause harm to the
substantive rights of complainant and such was made without malice and devoid of any
desire to dupe or defraud the latter, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of three months against respondent is commensurate.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds 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 hereby
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. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan and Singh, JJ., concur.

[1] Record, pp. 1-12.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id. at 150-151.

[4] Id. at 108-116.

[5] Id. at 109.

[6] Id at 110.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 5/6
5/11/23, 12:09 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[7] Id. at 128-137.

[8] Id. at 138-140.

[9] Id. (Unpaginated).

[10] See Collantes vs. Atty. Mabuti, A.C. No. 9917, 14 January 2019.

[11] See Orenia III vs. Gonzales, A.C No. 12766, 7 October 2020.

[12] Section 1, Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice.

[13] See Roa Buenafe vs. Atty. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, 20 March 2019.

[14] Supra note 11.

[15] See Re: John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274, 7 October 2020; See also Rico

vs. Madrazo, Jr., A.C. 7231, 1 October 2019; See further Malvar vs. Baleros, A.C.
No. 11346, 8 March 2017.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/68504 6/6