A.C. No. 12443 - Valdez vs. Hipe

An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Bernaldo E. Valdez (complainant) against Atty. Winston B. Hipe (respondent) before the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court.
The complaint alleged that respondent violated the lawyer’s oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Complainant received a copy of an affidavit executed by respondent in support of a counter-affidavit filed by Atty. Calberito M. Caballero.
The affidavit in question stated that respondent notarized the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe.
The affidavit contained notarial details such as “Doc. No. 379; Page No. 76; Book No. XXXI; Series of 2016.”

Complainant pointed out that the Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of Quezon City (dated February 9, 2018) referred instead to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death executed by Helen G. Mesa on April 11, 2016 and not to the Verification/Certification.
The Certification included details that matched those in respondent's Notarial Register, affirming that the document referenced was the Affidavit of Circumstances of Death.
Copies of the affidavit, the complaint with the Verification/Certification, the Affidavit of Circumstances of Death, respondent’s loose leaf notarial register, and the OCC-RTC Certification were submitted as evidence.

In his comment filed on June 11, 2019, respondent admitted to executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification on April 11, 2016.
He acknowledged that he may have failed to include the Verification/Certification in the notarial report due to inadvertence and his heavy workload as a legal consultant under the Public Assistance and Legal Aid Office of Quezon City.
Respondent emphasized:

This was a singular incident involving a document for which he had no interest or prior involvement.
In his 18-plus years as a notary public, this was his first administrative charge.
He expressed remorse and apologized for his oversight, pledging to exercise more circumspection in his notarial duties, especially given his advanced age (stated as seventy-eight years old).

Whether or not there exist sufficient grounds to hold respondent administratively liable for his failure to record the Verification/Certification in his notarial register.
Whether such omission, which resulted in assigning notarial details to two distinct documents, constitutes a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.