Title
Paras vs. De Paz
Case
A.C. No. 13372
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2022
Atty. De Paz suspended for 3 months, notarial commission revoked for failing to record documents, delegating duties, and violating notarial rules and CPR.
A

Case Digest (A.C. No. 13372)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • This administrative case involves a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Juanito V. Paras (Complainant) against Atty. Jonathan J. De Paz (Respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
    • The complaint centers on alleged violations of IBP Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
  • Alleged Misconduct in Notarization
    • Complainant Paras alleged that Atty. De Paz notarized two documents executed by Sergio Antonio Paras, Jr.:
      • The Last Will and Testament (Last Will) wherein Sergio instituted his twins, James Gabriel and John Michael, as heirs while omitting his mother, Arlinda Paras, which Paras contended amounted to preterition.
      • An Affidavit of Admission of Paternity which purportedly acknowledged the paternity of the twins.
    • Paras further alleged that both documents were falsities and forgeries due to:
      • Their non-registration in Atty. De Paz’s notarial register.
      • The failure to submit or retain duplicate original copies as required by the rules.
      • The evidence of suspiciously similar entries in the notarial book, with close page and document numbers.
    • Additional forensic findings claimed:
      • A forensic report revealed discrepancies in Sergio’s signatures on the Last Will compared to his other known signatures, indicating the possibility that two different persons penned them.
      • The existence of additional cases for correction (e.g., the use of the surname “Paras” and simulations of birth) further complicated the factual matrix.
  • Respondent’s Defense and Admissions
    • Atty. De Paz admitted to notarizing both the Last Will and the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity.
    • He acknowledged the non-entry of these documents in his notarial register but attributed the oversight to the inadvertence of his office clerk responsible for recording the entries.
    • He argued that:
      • The Last Will was executed primarily for the appointment of a guardian for Sergio’s minor children and not for the disposition of properties, thereby negating an element of preterition.
      • The non-registration did not equate to forgery since the documents were genuinely executed by Sergio.
      • He was not personally obligated to forward a duplicate original copy to the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), RTC-Cebu City, for the Last Will.
      • The presence of witnesses during the execution of the Last Will reinforced its authenticity, dismissing the allegation of forgery.
  • IBP’s Findings and Recommendation
    • The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC) determined that Atty. De Paz was administratively liable for:
      • Violating Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly record the Last Will and by not forwarding a copy to the appropriate Notarial Section.
      • Breaching Rule 1.01 and Rule 9.01 of the CPR by engaging in conduct that was unlawful, dishonest, and by delegating duties to an unqualified person (i.e., his office clerk).
    • Based on these findings, the IBP-IC recommended:
      • Suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months.
      • Revocation of his notarial commission.
      • Issuance of a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offenses would be met with more severe penalties.
    • The IBP Board of Governors later adopted and approved this recommendation with no significant change to the core findings.

Issues:

  • Liability for Notarial Non-Compliance
    • Whether Atty. De Paz is administratively liable for failing to register the notarized Last Will and the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity in his notarial register.
    • Whether his failure to submit or maintain duplicate original copies of the Last Will to the Notarial Section of the OCC, RTC-Cebu City, constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
  • Attribution of Responsibility
    • Whether the respondent can validly shift the blame for non-registration and non-submission to his office clerk’s inadvertence.
    • Whether such delegation or failure to personally ensure compliance with the notarial requirements amounts to a breach of his duties as a lawyer and notary public.
  • Authenticity and Integrity of Notarial Documents
    • Whether the alleged discrepancies in the entries and the forensic evidence regarding the signatures sufficiently undermine the integrity of the notarized documents to warrant disciplinary action.
    • Whether the presence of witnesses during the notarization of the Last Will negates the allegations of forgery despite the registration irregularities.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.