A.C. No. 12766 - Orenia III vs. Gonzales

Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales, the respondent, functioned as counsel for Domingo C. Reyes (and his siblings) in a criminal complaint against Rodrigo C. Reyes and Emerencia R. Gungab, employers of the complainant, Rodolfo L. Orenia III.
In a counter-reply, the complainant filed a Complaint Affidavit for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Mr. Reyes, his siblings, and Atty. Gonzales.
Subsequent to these actions, the complainant initiated an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Gonzales before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.

On December 28, 1998, Atty. Gonzales notarized a Deed of Sale executed by Antonio A. Guanzon, recording the instrument in his notarial registry with specific details (Document No. 305; Page No. 62; Book No. 10; Series of 1998).
On December 29, 1998, he notarized a Director’s Certificate which was assigned the same notarial details as the previous document, despite being a different document, and failed to record it in his notarial register.
The complainant alleged that the Director’s Certificate was not only improperly recorded but also falsified, claiming that it lacked authorization from Anaped Estate, Inc.’s Board of Directors and that the signatories did not execute it in his presence.
Additionally, the complainant charged that Atty. Gonzales misrepresented himself by allegedly signing the minutes of a board meeting as the Corporate Secretary of Anaped Estate, Inc., and that he engaged in physical aggression by attempting to hit him while uttering “ulol ka.”

Atty. Gonzales answered the allegations by admitting his failure to record the Director’s Certificate, attributing the error to the negligence of his former secretary, and denying the remaining charges.
He submitted his Respondent’s Conference Brief and later filed an Omnibus Motion for the dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the administrative case was essentially a harassment suit aimed at dissuading him from pursuing counter-cases against the complainant’s employers.
A further contentious submission was an undated Affidavit of Undertaking (purportedly executed by the complainant) which indicated an alleged commitment to dismiss the case in exchange for money and for providing information against the complainant’s employers.
During the mandated conference on March 5, 2014, only Atty. Gonzales appeared, prompting the Investigating Commissioner to terminate the conference and subsequently order the submission of Position Papers.
Atty. Gonzales presented his Position Paper on March 27, 2014, restating his defense regarding the notarial lapses and emphasizing the complainant’s own undertakings.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, in her Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2015, originally recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

Contradicting the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XXII-2016-414 dated August 26, 2016, imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Gonzales and simultaneously revoked his existing notarial commission, further disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
Atty. Gonzales filed a motion for partial reconsideration, and on May 28, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors granted this motion. Their new resolution removed the six-month suspension but maintained the immediate revocation of his notarial commission along with a two-year disqualification.

Atty. Gonzales conceded the failure to enter the Director’s Certificate in his notarial register and to assign proper notarial details, defending himself by attributing these errors to his former secretary.
The complainant’s allegations regarding document falsification, unauthorized execution, misrepresentation as Corporate Secretary, and physical assault were presented without corroborative evidence.
Despite procedural orders, the complainant failed to submit his Position Paper, thereby weakening his case and the ability to substantiate the additional charges.

The Court underscored that the notarial duties are dictated by public policy, emphasizing the obligation of the notary public to maintain a systematic, chronological, and accurate notarial register.
It reiterated that the notary’s failure to record entries, or delegating such responsibilities to an unqualified person, violates both the explicit provisions of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court observed that the reliability of notarized documents is a matter of public trust and that any deviation from established rules undermines the integrity of the notarial system.

Whether Atty. Gonzales’ failure to record the Director’s Certificate in his notarial register, and his assignment of identical notarial details to different documents, constitutes a dereliction of his duties as a notary public.

Whether this failure amounts to a clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Section 2, Rule VI and Section 1 (b)(2), Rule XI regarding proper entries in the register.
Whether delegating the recording task to an unqualified former secretary absolves him of personal responsibility under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether the additional allegations—pertaining to the alleged falsification of the Director’s Certificate, misrepresentation as Corporate Secretary, and use of physical threats—have sufficient evidentiary support to warrant further disciplinary sanctions.

The issue centers on whether the complainant adequately substantiated these charges, given his failure to produce corroborative documents or additional evidence during the proceedings.

The appropriate quantum and mode of sanctioning, in light of the gravity of the notarial misconduct as well as the necessity to uphold public trust in the notarial system and the legal profession.

Determining if the imposed penalty should reflect strict adherence to public policy while balancing the circumstances of oversight (i.e., attributing the error to a subordinate) versus the fundamental duty of personal accountability.