A.C. No. 13332 - Pajarillo vs. Yanto

Complainant Aloysius R. Pajarillo, who was one of the plaintiffs in a recovery of ownership and possession civil case (Civil Case No. 8028) pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camarines Norte, Branch 41.
Respondent Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto, who acted as legal counsel for the defendants (Ronnie Pimentel, George Pimentel, and Roweno Pimentel) in the said civil case.

In the pre-trial brief submitted by the defendants, the existence of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by respondent was alluded to as authorizing Roweno to represent his brothers in filing the case.
The SPA was not originally attached to the pre-trial brief but was later adduced as an exhibit during the formal offer.
Complainant, sensing an irregularity, verified with the Office of the Clerk of Court and discovered that the SPA recorded in respondent’s notarial registry differed from the one presented—specifically, a different SPA was registered bearing identical document number, page number, book number, and series.

Complainant filed a criminal case against respondent for Falsification of Public Documents before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
Concurrently, an administrative disciplinary case was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 18-5757.

Respondent denied the allegation of falsification and maintained that no intentional wrongdoing was committed.
He explained that on February 5, 2015, defendants (his clients) submitted several copies of two SPAs—one intended for the civil case and the other for a case pending with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The SPAs, despite having similar provisions authorizing Roweno’s representation, were intended for two separate cases.
Due to the identical appearance of the documents, respondent’s office staff mistakenly assumed it was a single SPA and consequently assigned one set of notarial details to both.
The SPA forwarded to the Clerk of Court (and thus reported) was the one intended for the DENR case, while the copy filed with the RTC was for the civil case.

The RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 41 rendered an adverse decision against complainant in the civil case.
The Provincial Prosecutor, after assessing the evidence, found no probable cause to charge respondent with Falsification of Public Documents.
The IBP Board of Governors, on June 5, 2021, issued a Resolution recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent, having reversed an earlier ruling that found him liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice.
The IBP board relied on the narrative that the mistake was honest and isolated, supported by the affidavits of respondent’s office staff.

Whether respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly record and differentiate two distinct SPAs in his notarial register.
Whether the act of delegating the recording of notarial details to office staff, thereby resulting in associating identical notarial details to two separate documents, constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Whether such negligence and error, even if isolated and without malicious intent, sufficiently undermine public confidence in the integrity of the notarial process.
Whether the errors in the notarization process, when viewed alongside the legal obligations of notaries public to ensure that every notarial act is distinctly and accurately recorded, justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions and the revocation of respondent’s notarial commission.