A.C. No. 8637 - Gaddi vs. Velasco

Complainant: Imelda Cato Gaddi, who served as the Operations and Accounting Manager of Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS).
Respondent: Atty. Lope M. Velasco, a notary public commissioned for Makati City from January 4, 2010, to December 31, 2011, and a practicing lawyer.

Gaddi proposed opening a branch of BLSS in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, based on an assumption that Angelo Lozada, the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS, consented to the idea.
Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi acted on the idea and established the BLSS branch in Solano.
Subsequently, Angelo informed management that he had not authorized the opening of the BLSS branch in Solano, sparking controversy.

Following Angelo’s complaint, the police apprehended the BLSS in Solano instructors, including Jonathan Lagamzon Lozare, Katherine Agatha Gaddi Ancheta (Gaddi’s niece), and Lorenz Ocampo Gaddi (Gaddi’s grandson).
On April 22, 2010, at approximately 10:00 a.m. in the BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, Gaddi learned about the apprehension of the instructors.
In a state of worry, Gaddi pleaded with Angelo’s wife, Kristina Marie, and the BLSS Programs Manager, Aleza Garcia, for permission to leave the office and proceed to Nueva Vizcaya; however, they instead compelled her to make a handwritten admission stating that the BLSS in Solano was unauthorized.

Gaddi contended that she did not personally appear before Velasco for notarization, nor did she voluntarily consent to its notarization.
According to her, she did not provide Velasco any competent evidence of identity, nor did she sign the notarial register as mandated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
In contrast, Velasco asserted in his comment dated September 17, 2010, that Gaddi appeared before him in his Makati City office, presented two identification cards (her BLSS ID and TIN ID) as proof, and requested the notarization of a four-page handwritten document.
Velasco notarized the document and recorded it in his notarial register as Doc. No. 130, Page No. 27, Book No. 192, Series of 2010.

After learning that Angelo had filed a complaint against her using the notarized handwritten admission, Gaddi initiated an administrative complaint against Velasco for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (specifically, Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3).
Velasco countered by claiming that Gaddi later denied having appeared for notarization only because she discovered the document was used against her.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

Investigating Commissioner Pablo S. Castillo found the complaint "impressed with merit" and recommended a penalty of a P5,000 fine for Velasco.
The investigation leaned heavily on Gaddi’s assertion that she did not personally appear for the notarization, noting that it was contrary to logic and human experience for her to obtain notarization of a self-incriminating document before heading to Nueva Vizcaya.
Additional findings included that the identification cards presented by Velasco appeared to be computer-generated from the BLSS office, as the section of the notarial certificate listing evidence of identity was left blank.
Velasco’s claim regarding a “fake notary public” was deemed unsubstantiated.

On February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation with modification, finding Velasco guilty of violating Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The resolution mandated the revocation and disqualification of Velasco’s notarial commission for two years and issued a stern warning regarding a recurrence of such offense.

Whether Gaddi personally appeared before Velasco as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Whether Velasco properly ascertained Gaddi’s identity through competent evidence as mandated.

Whether the handwritten admission was executed voluntarily or under duress, given the circumstances leading up to the notarization.
Whether Velasco should have refused to notarize the document when it was apparent that Gaddi’s act might not have been free and voluntary.

Whether the notarization process was properly observed, particularly the completeness of the notarial certificate (notably the blank fields for identification details).
Whether the deficiencies in the certificate compromise the credibility and evidentiary value of the notarized document.

Whether Velasco’s actions constitute a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (specifically, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01).
Whether such breaches justify the disciplinary measures imposed—including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification as a notary public.