Facts:

The case involves Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, as the complainant against Atty. Renato C. Bagay, the respondent. The events leading to the complaint originated from a letter dated June 11, 2008, in which Atty. Angeles reported to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan that Atty. Bagay had notarized 18 documents while he was out of the country from March 13, 2008, to April 8, 2008. The documents included various deeds of donation and absolute sale, with notarization dates spanning March and April 2008, during Atty. Bagay's absence from the Philippines, as he attended a prayer conference in Mexico. Atty. Angeles provided affidavits from individuals who had their documents notarized, stating that they did not observe Atty. Bagay signing the documents themselves; instead, the notarizations were allegedly performed by Atty. Bagay’s secretary in his absence. Upon verification with the Bureau of Immigration, evidence conf

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Complaint

• Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., then Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, submitted a letter of complaint regarding certain notarization irregularities committed by Atty. Renato C. Bagay.
• The complaint originated from a June 11, 2008 letter reporting irregularities in the notarization of public documents while the respondent was abroad.

Notarized Documents and Alleged Irregularities

• Eighteen documents were notarized between March 14, 2008 and April 8, 2008.
• These documents included various deeds of donation and absolute sale.
• Each document had been notarized despite Atty. Bagay’s absence from the country.
• The notarizations were executed by the respondent’s office secretary, who signed on his behalf and affixed his notarial seal on the documents.
• Affidavits from the individuals involved indicated that they did not personally see the respondent sign the documents; rather, they observed either the secretary’s signature or received documents that were already signed.

Chronology and Related Facts

• Records confirmed by the Bureau of Immigration showed that the respondent departed the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008.
• The notarized documents were subsequently endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer who had received information regarding the unauthorized notarizations.
• The Executive Judge, acting on the complaint, referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Bataan Chapter, which in turn escalated it to the IBP National Office and eventually to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).

Proceedings and Investigations

• CBD Director Alicia Risos-Vidal requested Atty. Angeles, Jr. to formalize the complaint, but the complainant clarified that his original letter was meant as an endorsement of public documents rather than a formal complaint.
• Despite the procedural nuances, the case proceeded with the respondent being required to comment on the allegations.
• In his 27 March 2009 comment, the respondent admitted his unawareness of the unauthorized notarizations, asserting that his secretary had notarized the documents without his knowledge or proper authority, and that he had already terminated the employment of the said secretary.
• A mandatory conference held on September 16, 2009 witnessed only the respondent’s attendance, after which position papers were filed—with only the respondent submitting one that reiterated his 21 years of unblemished practice.

Investigation Findings and IBP Resolution

• The Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III, found that:
• The complainant’s original letter was not verified, and many attachments were unauthenticated photocopies.
• Despite these issues, the respondent’s comment revealed that the signature on his comment strongly resembled those affixed on the notarized documents executed in his absence.
• It was established, by the respondent’s own admission, that his notarial seal and signature were employed by his secretary without proper authorization.
• Based on the findings, the Investigating Commissioner recommended:
• Immediate revocation of the respondent’s notarial commission.
• Disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years, considering the negligence in his duty.
• The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation on September 28, 2013.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent was denied on May 4, 2014, and the matter was further endorsed to the Office of the Chief Justice for appropriate action.

Issue:

• Whether the notarization of documents by the respondent’s office secretary, in his absence abroad, constituted negligence in the performance of his notarial duty.
• Whether a notary public may escape liability by attributing unauthorized notarization acts solely to his secretary.
• Determining the appropriate disciplinary measures considering the impact of the unauthorized acts on public trust and the integrity of the notarial process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)