Case Digest (A.C. No. 8103)
Facts:
Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay, A.C. No. 8103, 749 Phil. 114; 111 O.G. No. 26, 3607 (June 29, 2015), Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The complaint began with a letter dated June 11, 2008 from Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. (Provincial Legal Officer, Bataan) addressed to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan alleging that Atty. Renato C. Bagay notarized 18 documents while he was out of the country from March 13 to April 8, 2008. The documents comprised deeds of donation, deeds of absolute sale, and an extrajudicial settlement, dated between March 14 and April 8, 2008. Attached affidavits from the parties to those instruments stated they did not observe respondent sign the documents; some affiants said the documents “came out of the office already signed.” A Bureau of Immigration certification confirmed a Renato C. Bagay departed March 13 and returned April 8, 2008.
The Executive Judge referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Bataan Chapter, which forwarded it to the IBP National Office and the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). CBD Director Alicia Risos‑Vidal asked Atty. Angeles to formalize the complaint; he replied on September 30, 2008 that his original letter was intended as a report and endorsement, not a formal complaint. The matter was subsequently endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (December 3, 2008) and the Supreme Court required respondent to comment (Resolution dated February 2, 2009).
In his March 27, 2009 comment respondent acknowledged he was unaware at first but later learned that his office secretary had notarized the documents in his absence, apologized, and stated he had terminated the secretary. The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation. At the mandatory conference only respondent appeared; he filed a position paper claiming 21 years of unblemished practice. Investigating Commissioner Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III reported that although the complaint and many attachments were not authenticated, respondent’s signature on his comment bore a striking similarity to the signatures on most attached notarized documents and that respondent admitted the secretary performed the notarizations without his knowledge. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent negligent for hiring and entrusting notarial paraphernalia and records to an untrained secretary and recommended immediate revocation of his notarial commission and a two‑year disqualification.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation (Resolution dated September 28, 2013). Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing his admission merited leniency...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the notarization of documents by respondent’s secretary while respondent was out of the country constitute negligence in the performance of his notarial duties?
- If negligence is established, what disciplinary measures are appropriate, and do respondent’s acts also violate the Code of Profes...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)