The Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s failure to properly record a notarized document in their notarial book, and delegating this duty to a secretary, constitutes gross negligence and a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision reinforces the critical role of notaries public in ensuring the integrity and reliability of legal documents, impacting the public’s trust in the legal system. The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for two years.

When a Notary’s Pen Fails: The Case of the Missing Record

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe against Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan, accusing him of grave misconduct for allegedly falsifying a public document. The complainant, Johaida, owned a property based on a Declaration of Heirship with Extrajudicial Settlement. She later discovered that Serena Garaygay had paid real estate taxes for the same property. Further investigation revealed a Conformity document, purportedly signed by Johaida’s brother, Jose G. Roa, and notarized by Atty. Lirazan. However, Johaida claimed Jose’s signature was forged, and the National Archives had no record of the document, raising questions about the validity of its notarization. This case addresses the extent of a notary public’s responsibility in maintaining accurate records and the consequences of failing to do so, thus addressing the question of whether a notary public can be held liable for errors or omissions in their notarial register, especially when such errors lead to the issuance of questionable property titles.

Atty. Lirazan denied the allegations, stating that Jose personally appeared before him and affirmed the document, which he believed was related to a prior sale of the property to Serena. He attributed the error in recording the document to his secretary, claiming it was done in good faith and should not affect the document’s validity. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission found Atty. Lirazan did not falsify the document but noted the discrepancy in his notarial book, violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Commission’s findings and recommendation. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty.

The Supreme Court emphasized the public interest inherent in the act of notarization. A notary public has a duty to discharge their responsibilities with fidelity, as dictated by public policy. A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must faithfully adhere to the rules governing notarial practice, upholding the laws and avoiding falsehoods. As the Court stated:

Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Sec. 2, Rule VI, outlines the necessary details for entries in a notary public’s register. These include the entry number, date, type of act, document description, names and addresses of principals, evidence of identity, fees charged, and the notarization location. Failure to properly record these details can lead to the revocation of the notary’s commission or other administrative sanctions. This failure also violates the lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes.

In this case, Atty. Lirazan failed to properly fulfill his duties. Despite the Conformity document bearing his notarial details and being registered in his book, it was not found in the National Archives’ records. The Archives instead had another document with the same notarial details. This discrepancy raised doubts about whether the Conformity document had been genuinely notarized. The Court emphasizes the importance of meticulous record-keeping by notaries public, highlighting the specific requirements outlined in the Rules on Notarial Practice.

Atty. Lirazan admitted to notarizing the document and that Jose appeared before him. However, he failed to properly record the document and used the same notarial details for another document. The Court found this inexcusable and constituted gross negligence. Respondent cannot simply impute the error to his secretary because he is the one charged by law with the recording in his notarial register of the necessary information regarding documents or instruments he has notarized. Notaries public must 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.

Delegating the notarial function of recording entries to his secretary was a clear violation of notarial rules. This contravened Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:

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.

Atty. Lirazan’s failure resulted in damage to those affected by the notarized document, leading to a new and questionable certificate of title issued in favor of Serena, prejudicing the complainant’s property rights. The Court has consistently held that notaries public must personally ensure the accuracy of their records. Such negligence degrades the function of notarization and diminishes public confidence in notarial documents. Canon 1 of the Code mandates obedience to laws and legal processes.

The Court cited Agagon v. Bustamante, 565 Phil. 581 (2007), emphasizing that lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for legal processes. The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require proper entries in the Notarial Register and avoidance of acts that could revoke the commission or impose sanctions. The notarization of public documents serves the public interest, requiring reliance on the acknowledgments made by notaries public. Atty. Lirazan’s non-compliance seriously undermined the dependability of notarized documents.

Considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the appropriate penalty. Previous jurisprudence shows that notaries public who fail to discharge their duties face revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from legal practice. The terms vary based on the case’s specifics.

In Malvar v. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16, 30 (2017), a lawyer delegated record-keeping to a staff member, and the document was missing. The Court found this a defiance of notarial rules and a breach of the Code, suspending the lawyer for six months and disqualifying her from reappointment for two years, with revocation of her notarial commission.

Similarly, in Spouses Chambon v. Ruiz, A.C. No. 11478, September 5, 2017, 838 SCRA 526, the lawyer failed to make proper entries and delegated the duty to his secretary. The Court found him doubly negligent and dishonest, resulting in perpetual disqualification from being a notary public, a one-year suspension, and revocation of his notarial commission. These cases illustrate the range of penalties imposed for dereliction of notarial duties, with the severity depending on the extent of the negligence and the resulting harm.

In Atty. Lirazan’s case, he delegated notarization tasks to his secretary and failed to explain the missing copy of the notarized document. These actions violated his duties as a notary public and Canons 1 and 9 of the Code. Therefore, the Court modified the IBP Board’s recommendation, adding a one-year suspension from legal practice for his disregard of the legal profession’s integrity and dignity. Lawyers must possess good moral character and act with honesty to maintain public faith in the legal profession. The Court holds that lawyers are bound to uphold the law, emphasizing the need to live by it.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Lirazan, as a notary public, should be held liable for failing to properly record a notarized document in his notarial register and delegating this responsibility to his secretary. The case also examined the consequences of such negligence on the validity of the notarized document and its impact on the public’s trust in the legal system.
What did the complainant allege against Atty. Lirazan?	The complainant, Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe, alleged that Atty. Lirazan falsified a public document by notarizing a Conformity document with incorrect notarial details. She also claimed that her brother’s signature on the document was forged, and the document was not recorded in the National Archives, indicating a possible falsification or irregularity in the notarization process.
What was Atty. Lirazan’s defense?	Atty. Lirazan denied the allegations, stating that Jose G. Roa, the complainant’s brother, personally appeared before him and affirmed the document. He attributed the error in recording the document to his secretary and claimed it was done in good faith. He also argued that the issue of the document’s authenticity was pending before a regional trial court.
What did the IBP recommend?	The IBP Commission recommended the revocation of Atty. Lirazan’s notarial commission and his disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendations, which were later modified by the Supreme Court.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Lirazan guilty of violating Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for two (2) years.
Why did the Supreme Court impose a penalty on Atty. Lirazan?	The Supreme Court imposed the penalty because Atty. Lirazan failed to properly discharge his duties as a notary public by not recording the notarized document accurately and delegating this responsibility to his secretary. This failure undermined the integrity of the notarization process and eroded public confidence in notarial documents.
What is the significance of the Rules on Notarial Practice?	The Rules on Notarial Practice outline the specific duties and responsibilities of notaries public, including the proper recording of notarized documents. Compliance with these rules is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of legal documents and to maintain public trust in the legal system.
What does the case say about delegating notarial functions?	The case explicitly states 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. The act of notarization is vested with public interest, as such the notary public should perform their duties with utmost care.

This decision serves as a strong reminder to all notaries public of their crucial role in upholding the integrity of legal documents. By emphasizing the importance of meticulous record-keeping and adherence to the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Supreme Court seeks to ensure that the public can continue to rely on the validity and authenticity of notarized documents, safeguarding the public’s trust in the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOHAIDA GARINA ROA­ BUENAFE, VS. ATTY. AARON R. LIRAZAN, A.C. No. 9361, March 20, 2019