,·
31\epubhc of tbe J)bthpptne~
~upre111e QCourt
;!flllanila
SECOND DIVISION
JUANITO V. PARAS, A.C. No. 13372
Complainant, [Formerly CBD Case No. 19-593tj
- versus - P resent:
L EONEN, S.A.J., Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M.
ATTY. JONATHAN J. DE LOPEZ, J ., and
PAZ, KH O, JR., JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated :
ocr ·12 2022 ~
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DEC I S I ON
KHO, JR., J. :
T his administrative case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by
complainant Juanito V. Paras (Paras) against respondent Atty. Jonathan J. De
·~·
Paz (Atty. De Paz) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
violation of Rules 1.0 l and 1.02, Canon l of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
T he Facts
Paras alleged that Atty. De Paz notarized the Last Will and Testament
(Last Will)2 of Sergio Antonio Paras, Jr. (Sergio), wherein the latter instituted
the twins, James Gabriel and John M ichael, as his heirs, without including his
mother, Arlinda Paras, which act in itself constitutes preterition. Upon further
inquiry, Paras found out that Atty. De Paz likewise notarized an Affidavit of
1
Rollo. pp. 1- 7.
ld.at 8- I0 .
Decision 2 A.C. No. 13372 ..
Admission of Paternity and Consent to Use Surname of the Father (Affidavit
of Admission of Paternity), 3 allegedly signed by Sergio, recognizing the
paternity of James Gabriel and John Michael. 4 Paras averred that the Last Will
under Doc. No. 202, Page No. 40, Book No. VI, Series of 2015, 5 and the
Affidavit of Admission of Paternity of the twins under Doc. No. 128, Page
No. 26, Book No. VI, Series of 2015, 6 were falsities and forgeries, and that
Atty. De Paz did not record said documents in his notarial book nor submit
their duplicate original copies to the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of
Court (OCC), Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Cebu City. 7 He likewise alleged
that the documents were both indicated in the same notarial book with very
close page and document numbers, and that Atty. De Paz failed to comply
with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,8 as the entry
appearing on Doc. No. 202, Page No. 40, Book No. VI, Series of2015 does
not pertain to the Last Will but ajudicial affidavit dated June 13, 2015 ofa
certain "Fe P. Canada." 9 Moreover, he claimed that per Questioned Document
Report No. 09-2017-43 10 by Five R Forensic Examination and Consultancy,
the signature of Sergio on the Last Will, as compared to his signatures
appearing on his senior citizen's identification card, 11 checks from Equicom
Savings Bank, and one check from Eastwest Bank, were written by two
different persons. 11 He further averred that they instituted a case for correction
of entries of birth certificates of James Gabriel and John Michael to correct
the illegally entered Affidavit of Admission of Paternity and the use of the
twins of the surname "Paras," which constituted the crime of simulation of
birth. 12
For his part, Atty. De Paz admitted the existence of the Last Will and
the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity, as well as the fact that he notarized
the same. However, he maintained that both documents were not forged, as
they were duly executed by Sergio himself. He claimed that there can be no
preterition as the Last Will was not about the disposition of Sergio's properties
but more on the appointment of a guardian for his minor children. He then
admitted the non-entry of the Last Will and the Affidavit of Admission of
Paternity in his notarial registry but claimed that the same was attributable to
the inadvertence on the part of his office clerk, who was in charge of the
recording of the entries therein. 13 He likewise averred that the said non-entry
does not mean that the subject documents were forgeries. He further claimed
that he was not duty-bound to submit the subject documents to the Notarial
Section, OCC, RTC-Cebu City, much less retain copies thereof. Finally, he
!d.atll.
4 Id. at 2. lt appears from the record of this case that a Petition was filed to change the surname of James
Gabriel and John Michael from "Paras" to '"Patajo." However, the attached certificates of live birth of
the twins indicated their names as "Zyril'" and '"Zyrus" Patajo (see id. at 25-33 and 34--35). "Zyril" is
spelled as "Zyryl" in the rolio (see id. at 11 ).
Id. at 10.
6 Id. at 11.
7
Id. at 2-3.
8
A.M. No. 02-18-13-SC (August 1, 2004).
9 Rollo, p. 3.
10
Id. at 14-15.
II ]d. at 3-4.
11
Id. at 1-6.
13
!d. at 44-45.
Decision ·'" A.C. No. 13372
clai1?ed that the a!leg~tio~ as to the forgery of the Last Will was utterly self-
servmg as when Serg10 signed the same in 2015, there were three witnesses
present, namely: Valentino C. Bacalso, Jr., Neil John Ryan Baruc, and Gela
P. Durango. 14
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 15 dated August 28, 2020, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC) found Atty. De Paz administratively
liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice due to his admitted
inadvertence caused by his office in the non-registration of the Last Will in
his notarial register. 16 Accordingly, the IBP-IC recommended that Atty. De
Paz be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and
his current notarial commission be revoked, with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same offense or similar conduct will be dealt with severely. 17
In a Resolution 18 dated October I 6, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the IBP-IC's Report and Recommendation.
The Issue Before the Court
The core issue in this case is whether Atty. De Paz should be held
administratively liable for the acts complained of.
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendation of the
IBP with modification as to the imposable penalty.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the act of notarization
is impressed with public interest. "Notarization converts a private document
to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof
of its authenticity." 19 A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
credence. As such, "notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties" 20 in order to preserve the
21
confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. For being
invested with public interest, "a lawyer commissioned as a notary public has
a responsibility to faithfully observe the rules governing notarial practice,
14 Id. at 45. See also id. at I 0.
" Id. at 189-194. Signed by Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay.
16 Id.atl93.
17 ld.at!93-!94.
18 Jd. at 187-188. See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2021-10-15 signed by Assistant
National Secretary jose Angel B. Guidote, Jr.
19 Gaddi v. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810, 815 (2014).
,o Id.
21 See Dionisio, Jr. v. Padernal, A.C. No. 12673, March 15, 2022.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 13372
'
having taken a solemn oath under the [CPR] to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any." 22
Sections 1 and 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provide:
RULE VI
Notarial Register
Section 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public
shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as
provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of
notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered
pages.
xxxx
Section 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x xx
xxxx
(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.
xxxx
(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate
original copy of any instrument aclmowledged before
the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month
following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the
responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the
month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of
certified copies herein required. (Emphasis supplied)
"The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts.
Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded [therein] are considered
public documents. [Thus,] [i]fthe document or instrument does not appear in
the notarial records and there is no copy ofit therein, doubt is engendered that
the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public
document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document.
Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of
the notary public to record the document in [their] notarial registry is
tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when
in fact it was not. " 23
22
See Roa-Buenafe v. Lirazan, A.C. No. 936 I, March 20,2019, 897 SCRA 449,456.
23
Soriano v. Basco, 507 Phil. 4I0,415 (2005), citing Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8, 16-17 (2002).
Decision 5 A.C. No. 13372
In this case, Atty. De Paz violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
when: (a) he admitted the inadvertence caused by his office clerk as to the
nonregistration in his notarial registry of the Last Will and the Affidavit of
Admission of Paternity executed by Sergio; and (b) he claimed that he was
not duty-bound to submit to the Notarial Section, OCC, RTC-Cebu City a
duplicate original copy of the Last \Vil!, much less retain a copy thereof.
Verily, Atty. De Paz cannot escape the administrative liability by passing the
blame to the office clerk assigned in the recording of the entries. In Pitogo v.
24
Suello, the Court held that the "notarial commission is a license held
personally by the notary public. [This act] cannot be further delegated. It is
the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of
the entries in [their] notarial register." 25
Moreover, Atty. De Paz's failure to retain the original copy of the Last
Will and to submit a duplicate original copy thereof to the Notarial Section,
OCC, RTC-Cebu City are clear violations of Section 2 (h), Rule VI of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In Bartolome v. Basilio, 26 the Court ruled
that the abovementioned requirements apply to an instrument acknowledged
before the notary public, 27 like the subject Last Will in this case. However,
there can be no administrative infraction as to his failure to submit a copy of
the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity to the Notarial Section, OCC, RTC-
Cebu City as said document contained ajurat, and not an acknowledgment; 28
thus, it need not be forwarded to the said office.
Further, as a lawyer, Atty. De Paz is "expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the public in
the integrity of the legal profession." 29 Due to the abovementioned acts, Atty.
De Paz engaged in: (a) unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; and
(b) unlawful delegation of the task, which by law may only be performed by
a member of the Bar in good standing, to an unqualified person in violation
of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR, respectively, 30
thus:
CANON l - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in w1lawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
24
756 Phil. 124 (2015).
2, Id.at/33-134.
26
771 Phil. J (2015).
27
Id. at 9.
" Rollo, p. J I.
29 Sappayani v. Gasmen, 768 Phil. I, 8-9 (20 J5).
Jo See Ma/var v. Ba/eros, 807 Phil. I 6 (2017).
Decision 6 A.C. No. 13372
•
CANON 9 - A LA WYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW.
Rule 9.01 -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.
In the similar case of Re: Order dated December 5, 2017 in Adm. Case
No. NP-008-17 v. Tamano, 31 the Court found the erring lawyer guilty of
violation of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon
1 and Ruie 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR for failing to register the General
Information Sheets he notarized in his notarial book and imputing said
oversight to his office staff.
In several cases, the Court has subjected lawyers who were remiss in
their duties as notaries public to disciplinary sanction, such as: (a) revocation
of notarial commission; (b) disqualification from being commissioned as
notaries public; and (c) suspension from the practice of law.
In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, 32 the Court imposed the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, revocation of
notarial commission, and disqualification from being reappointed as notary
public against the erring lawyer for his failure to register the deed of absolute
sale in his notarial registry.
In Bartolome v. Basilio, 33 the lawyer therein failed to: (a) verify the
identities of the affiants who subscribed in the joint affidavit that he notarized;
and (b) record in his notarial registry said affidavit. Thus, the Court suspended
the erring lawyer from the practice of law for a period of one year, revoked
his commission as a notary public, and prohibited him from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years with a stem warning
that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future will be dealt
with more severely.
In Malvar v. Baleros, 34 the Court suspended the lawyer from the
practice of law for a period of six months, revoked her notarial commission,
and disqualified her from reappointment as notary public for a period of two
for her failure to: (a) require the physical presence of the affiant and for him
to present a competent proof of identity in the notarization of the application
for certification of alienable and disposable land; (b) record the same in her
notarial registry; and (c) personally register said application in the notarial
registry.
31
See A.C. No. 12274, October 7, 2020.
32
Supra note 23 at 18.
31
Supra note 26 at J J.
34
807 Phil. I 6 (20 I 7).
Decision .., A.C. No. 13372
'
In Agadan v. Kilaan, 35 the Court imposed the penalty of suspension
from the practice oflaw for a reriod of three months, revocation of the notarial
commission, and disqualification from being a notary public for a period of
one year with stem warning that a repetition of the same offense and similar
acts will be dealt with severely to the erring lawyer for his failure to make
proper entries in his notarial commission.
In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to modify the
penalty imposed by the IBP against Atty. De Paz to suspension from the
practice of law for a period of three months, revocation of notarial
commission, and disqualification for being reappointed as a notary public for
a period of one year, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same offense
or similar acts will be dealt with severely.
As a final note, it must be emphasized that "membership in the legal
profession is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but
also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order
to promote the public's faith in the legal profession." 36 Verily, "of all classes
and professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, and as
such, it is imperative that they live by the law." 37
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Jonathan J. De Paz is found
GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
three months effective immediately. His notarial commission is likewise
REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED to be reappointed as a notary public
for a period of one year. Moreover, he is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same offense or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
The suspension from the practice of law, the prohibition from being
commissioned as a notary public, and the revocation of his notarial
commission, if any, shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Decision
by respondent. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a manifestation to the
Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-
judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to. the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be attached to his personal record as a member of the Bar.
Furthermore, let copies of the same be served to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to
circulate them to all courts in the country for their infonnation and guidance.
35 720 Phil. 625 (2013).
36 See Rivera v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 12724, July 28, 2020.
37 See id.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 13372
SO ORDERED.
~~~~~
Associate Justice ·
WE CONCUR:
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
ZARO-JAVIER
A sociate Justice
JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
