A.C. No. 10627 - Gonzales, Jr. vs. Rivera and Bangoy

Complainants: Nelson Buensuceso, Cornelio De Runa, Gloria de la Pena, Jose Andrada, and Salvacion Jablo.
Respondent: Atty. Joelito T. Barrera, charged with unauthorized notarization.

The complainants alleged that respondent notarized several documents long after his notarial commission had expired in 1978.
The documents in question include:

A complaint for ejectment in Civil Case No. 109 (City Court of Iloilo, Branch 1).
An affidavit executed by plaintiff Candelaria Dayot dated 26 September 1990.
A supplemental affidavit dated 12 October 1990 by Candelaria Dayot.
A deed of sale dated 14 August 1990 involving Remedios Jocson, Teresa Padilla, and New Gold Star Management and Development Corporation.
A contract to sell dated 29 July 1990 between Candelario Dayot and Ramon Que.

Respondent Atty. Barrera was required to file a comment, which he did on 9 January 1992.
The documents were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Iloilo Chapter for investigation, which subsequently found:

The five mentioned documents along with four additional ones (from a separate complaint) were notarized between 8 July 1989 and 12 October 1990.
Respondent failed to furnish any records evidencing renewal or an application for renewal of his notarial commission after 1978.

Atty. Barrera admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed that his failure to renew his commission was due to excusable inadvertence and negligence.
He attributed the oversight to his secretary, who was tasked with monitoring the renewal requirement.
Upon learning of the lapse in his commission, he ceased all notarial activities and filed a petition for confirmation of his notarizations and his status as a notary public before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City on 2 October 1991.

Complainants Buensuceso et al. later withdrew their administrative complaint on 28 March 1992.
Despite the withdrawal, the Court maintained jurisdiction given the significant public interest involved and the gravity of the alleged misconduct.

Section 2632 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was cited, which punishes any person who, after the expiration or termination of his commission, notarizes documents with the intent to impart notarial authenticity.
The Court referenced prior cases, including Joson v. Baltazar and In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E. Flores, to emphasize that notarization is a critical public function and any act of unauthorized notarization constitutes gross misconduct and falsification of public documents.

Whether Atty. Barrera committed unauthorized notarization by notarizing documents after the expiration of his notarial commission.

Did his conduct, which involved notarizing documents long after his commission expired in 1978, meet the threshold for committing the unauthorized act?

Whether the defense of inadvertence and negligence, attributed to the actions of his secretary, is sufficient to absolve him of violation of notarial law.

Is a claim of excusable oversight acceptable in light of the responsibility a notary public holds?

Whether the withdrawal of the administrative complaint by the complainants negates the need for disciplinary action in view of the public interest involved.

Can the public interest and the gravity of the misconduct justify a remedy despite the withdrawal?