G.R. No. L-7614 - Potenciano vs. Dineros

Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe, the complainant, filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan, the respondent.
The complaint seeks the disbarment of Atty. Lirazan for grave misconduct, specifically alleging that he notarized and thereby contributed to the falsification of a public document.

Complainant claims ownership of Lot No. 3507, a property covered by Tax Declaration No. 1447, measuring 11,530 square meters.
Her title to the property is based on a Declaration of Heirship with Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver and/or Quitclaim of Rights, dated February 15, 2005, executed by her siblings, which relinquished their claims in favor of her.
Complainant maintained the payment of real estate taxes for the property over the years.

In 2008, complainant discovered that a third party, Serena Garaygay, had paid real estate tax for the subject property.
The discovery led to the identification of an undated but notarized document titled “Conformity” allegedly signed by complainant’s brother, Jose G. Roa.
The document bore respondent’s notarization details: Document No. 469, Page No. 94, Book I, Series of 2002.

Upon review with the National Archives, it was found that the notarized document as presented by the complainant did not exist in their records.
Instead, the National Archives showed that the notarial details corresponded to a Certification executed by SPO1 Edmundo S. Acosido on December 1, 2002.
The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269034 was issued in favor of Serena based on the disputed document.

Atty. Lirazan, in his comment, denied any falsification, asserting that he personally notarized the document when Jose appeared before him.
He maintained that the document was intended merely to confirm the execution of a missing deed of absolute sale in favor of Serena.
For the error in recording the document details in his notarial book, the respondent attributed the mistake to his secretary’s good faith action, claiming it did not affect the document’s validity.
He also noted that the issue regarding the document’s authenticity was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan City (Civil Case No. 1694).

The IBP Commission, in its Report and Recommendation dated September 7, 2016, recommended revocation of respondent’s notarial commission along with disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years.
While ruling that respondent did not intentionally falsify the document, the commission highlighted the discrepancy in his notarial register as a violation of Section 2, Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its December 7, 2017 Resolution, adopted the factual findings and recommendation of the IBP Commission.

Whether Atty. Lirazan violated his duties as a notary public by failing to properly record the notarization of the Conformity document in his notarial register.
Whether delegating the recording of notarial entries to his secretary, contrary to explicit provisions of the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, constitutes grave misconduct.
Whether the discrepancies between the notarial details in the disputed document and the records of the National Archives undermine the document’s authenticity.
Whether such non-compliance with the mandated notarial practice rules justifies imposing severe penalties, including suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.