Case Digest (A.C. No. 10317)
Facts:
Ma. Sarita G. Guerrero v. Atty. Michelle V. Gonzaga and Atty. Remus G. Gulmatico, A.C. No. 10317, July 29, 2025, Supreme Court En Banc, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Guerrero filed separate administrative complaints before Executive Judge Anita Guanzon Chua of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, alleging that respondents Atty. Gonzaga and Atty. Gulmatico, in their capacities as notaries public, notarized documents with false or inconsistent notarial particulars and thereby violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Guerrero alleged specific discrepancies: that Atty. Gonzaga notarized a deed of absolute sale as having been acknowledged before her on December 15, 2010 when it was executed on December 3, 2010, and that the notarial registry entry referenced a different document; and that Atty. Gulmatico recorded a secretary’s certificate with notarial particulars that in the registry pertained to a different instrument.
Executive Judge Chua conducted summary proceedings under Rule XI, Section 1(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and found both respondents administratively liable for failing to ensure accurate and chronologically recorded entries in their notarial registries; their notarial commissions were revoked and they were prohibited from being commissioned as notaries public for six months. Guerrero moved for reconsideration seeking permanent disqualification and disbarment; the executive judge denied the motions, explaining that her power was limited to disciplining under the Notarial Rules and advising Guerrero of other appropriate fora for criminal or further administrative relief.
Guerrero then brought an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court requesting disbarment and criminal referral. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended no additional sanctions beyond those already served; the IBP Board initially imposed an additional six-month suspension from the practice of law but, after reconsideration, the IBP Board adopted the view that the executive judge’s resolutions had become final and that immutability of judgments barred further penalization. The IBP’s Report and Recommendation (adopted in extended resolution dated July 1, 2022) was ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the present administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzaga and Atty. Gulmatico barred by finality, immutability of judgment, and res judicata because Guerrero failed to appeal Executive Judge Chua’s resolutions?
- Does the Supreme Court have supervisory jurisdiction to entertain complaints against notaries public and to impose disciplinary sanctions beyond those provided by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?
- Should the procedural mechanism under Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice be reconciled with or superseded by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)