G.R. No. 102070 - People vs. Alfeche, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102070)

Factual Background

The case stemmed from a letter dated June 11, 2008 written by Atty. Angeles, Jr. to Hon. Remigio M. Escalada, Jr., Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan. In that letter, Atty. Angeles, Jr. reported that respondent had notarized eighteen (18) documents during the period when respondent was allegedly absent from the Philippines, having departed on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008, as verified by the Bureau of Immigration certification attached to the letter.

The reported notarized documents consisted of multiple deeds and conveyances, including Deed of Donation, Deed of Absolute Sale, and an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights, each notarized on specified dates in March and April 2008. The letter also indicated that the Provincial Treasurer endorsed the documents to the Provincial Legal Office after receiving information that they were notarized while respondent was abroad, attending a “Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico.”

The attachments included affidavits executed by the persons who caused the documents to be notarized. Those affidavits reflected a common statement that the deponents did not see respondent sign the documents. The affidavits further stated that either the secretary signed for respondent or the documents came out of the office already signed.

Upon reference to the immigration verification, the Executive Judge referred the matter to the IBP, Bataan Chapter, which in turn endorsed it to the IBP National Office. The national office referred the case to the CBD for appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

Initiation of Proceedings and Respondent’s Initial Responses

When CBD Director Alicia Risos-Vidal required formalization of the complaint, Atty. Angeles, Jr. responded on September 30, 2008, explaining that his June 11, 2008 letter was not meant as a formal complaint but as a report and endorsement of public documents by respondent while respondent was out of the country, and he welcomed guidance on how to treat the documents.

On December 3, 2008, Director Risos-Vidal endorsed the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Court, in a Resolution dated February 2, 2009, noted Atty. Angeles, Jr.’s letter and required respondent to comment. In his comment dated March 27, 2009, respondent claimed that he was not aware that documents using his name were notarized while he was out of the country. He stated that when he inquired, he learned that the notarizations were done by his secretary without his knowledge or authority. He further alleged that the secretary notarized the documents without appreciating the import of the notarization act, and he apologized for his lapses. He also averred that he had terminated his secretary’s employment.

The Court then referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

IBP Mandatory Conference and Position Papers

During the mandatory conference on September 16, 2009, only respondent appeared. Atty. Angeles filed a manifestation reiterating his stance and requested that his own attendance be excused. The parties were directed to submit position papers. Respondent filed his position paper, later adding that after twenty-one (21) years of legal practice, he had acted as a notary public without blemish and had dutifully observed the rules governing the legal profession and notarial practice.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III, recommended discipline. The report found that Atty. Angeles, Jr.’s June 11, 2008 letter was not verified, and that most of the attachments were not authenticated photocopies. It likewise noted that respondent’s comment was not verified. Despite these procedural imperfections, the Commissioner focused on respondent’s own admissions and the apparent signature similarities.

The Investigating Commissioner observed that respondent’s signature on his comment appeared to be strikingly similar to signatures on most of the attached documents. The Commissioner also found that respondent admitted that there were documents notarized in his absence by his office secretary. In respondent’s own account, the secretary used respondent’s notarial credentials, including his seal and records, without understanding the import of the notarization act.

From those circumstances, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial duty because he failed to meet the standard required by the Rules on Notarial Practice. Specifically, respondent’s negligence in employing an office secretary who had access to his office, notarial seal, and records enabled the secretary to abuse her authority as notary public. The Commissioner recommended the immediate revocation of respondent’s notarial commission and his disqualification for two (2) years from being commissioned as a notary public.

IBP Board of Governors’ Adoption and Denial of Reconsideration

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation by its Resolution dated September 28, 2013. The dispositive portion of that resolution expressly declared respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial duty, revoked his notarial commission immediately, and disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that although he admitted what occurred, he did not act with wrongful intent and should receive leniency. He also characterized the act as simple negligence, which, in his view, did not warrant the harsh penalty of revocation and disqualification.

On May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration. It ruled that there was no cogent reason to reverse its findings and that the motion was merely a reiteration of matters already considered.

Core Issue Before the Court

The Court identified the sole issue as whether respondent’s notarization of documents through his secretary while he was out of the country constituted negligence.

The Parties’ Positions Before the Court

Respondent maintained that he had no knowledge of the notarizations and that his secretary acted without his authority. He sought leniency based on the absence of any earlier blemish, emphasizing that it was his first and only infraction. He also insisted that his acts, if at all, amounted to only simple negligence.

The complainant’s position, as reflected in the letter and the procedural course of the case, was that respondent’s notarial credentials were used during his absence, that the persons who caused the notarizations did not see respondent sign the instruments, and that such notarization deceived the public by converting private instruments into public documents despite respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that respondent’s conduct constituted negligence. The Court relied on respondent’s own admissions that the eighteen documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. The Court considered respondent responsible for the acts of his secretary because a notary public’s office necessarily requires strict observance of the Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court invoked Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, defining a Notary Public as one commissioned to perform official acts under the rules. It reasoned that a notary public’s secretary is not commissioned to perform those official acts. Respondent therefore could not escape liability by asserting that the acts were committed by the secretary without authorization. The Court stressed that respondent left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary in charge. The Court also found that respondent kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that the secretary could use those items to notarize documents and copy respondent’s signature.

The Court characterized this conduct as more than simple negligence. It described the excuse as flimsy and viewed the carelessness as consistent with a conscious act that allowed the secretary to sign and notarize in respondent’s absence. The Court further emphasized a settled responsibility: a person commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for entries in the notarial register and cannot pass responsibility to the secretary who handled the instruments. The Court concluded that respondent had to bear the consequence of his negligence.

As to leniency, the Court rejected respondent’s plea. It noted that his years of practice should have alerted him to safeguards capable of preventing violations. By permitting eighteen documents to be notarized by an unauthorized person, respondent deceived the public. The Court viewed that public prejudice as incompatible with mitigation.

The Court then addressed professional accountability as a lawyer. Because the notarization negligence involved a lawyer-notary, the Court held respondent liable for violation of the CPR, in addition to disciplinary liability as a notary public. It reasoned that failing to solemnly perform notarial duty damaged those directly affected and undermined the integrity of notarization and a notary public’s function.

The Court found that respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR, which requires lawyers not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court reasoned that through negligence allowing the secretary to sign on respondent’s behalf as notary public, respondent allowed an unauthorized person to practice what the law reserves to properly authorized notaries. By leaving the office open during his absence and with his secretary in charge, respondent effectively permitted notarization without adequate restraint or supervision.

The Court also found a violation of Canon 7 of the CPR, which requires every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. It reasoned that person

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 102070)

The case arose from a disciplinary proceeding against Atty. Renato C. Bagay, a lawyer and notary public, who was charged with negligence in the performance of his notarial duty.
The Court treated the matter as an administrative case through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) process and the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) referrals.
The Court ultimately imposed both notarial and professional discipline based on gross negligence and resulting unauthorized notarization.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. filed a letter-report initiating the complaint process against Atty. Renato C. Bagay for alleged notarizations executed while respondent was out of the country.
The IBP Board of Governors acted on the matter after investigation by an Investigating Commissioner and adopted the recommendation to revoke respondent’s notarial commission and disqualify him for two years.
Respondent moved for reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors, which denied the motion.
The Director for Bar Discipline endorsed the IBP rulings to the Office of the Chief Justice for appropriate action.
The Court resolved only the sole issue of whether the questioned notarizations constituted negligence, and it answered in the affirmative.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint stemmed from a letter dated June 11, 2008 submitted by Atty. Angeles, Jr. to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan, alleging that respondent notarized eighteen (18) documents while he was out of the country.
The alleged absence covered the period March 13, 2008 to April 8, 2008, as supported by verification with the Bureau of Immigration.
The letter asserted that the notarized documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office based on the Provincial Treasurer’s information that respondent was attending a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico when the notarizations were purportedly done.
The record showed that affidavits attached to the letter contained a common statement that the affiants did not see respondent sign the documents and that it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents came out of the office already signed.
The documents listed in the letter were notarized on varying dates between March 14, 2008 and April 8, 2008, including several Deeds of Absolute Sale and Deeds of Donation, and an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights.
Respondent admitted in his comment and later pleadings that the notarizations were done under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country.

Respondent’s Admissions and Defenses

Respondent claimed that he was not aware that documents using his name were notarized while he was abroad.
Respondent asserted that he discovered, through his own inquiry, that his office secretary notarized the documents without his knowledge and authority.
Respondent maintained that his secretary notarized the documents without realizing the import of the notarization act.
Respondent apologized for his lapses and stated that he had terminated the employment of his secretary from his office.
Respondent argued that his actions showed no wrongful intent and urged leniency by relying on his claimed twenty-one (21) years of practice without prior blemish.
Respondent characterized the act as simple negligence and contended it did not warrant the harsh penalties sought.

IBP Investigation Findings

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Angeles, Jr.’s June 11, 2008 letter was not verified.
The Investigating Commissioner also found that many attachments were not authenticated photocopies and that respondent’s comment was likewise not verified.
Despite these procedural deficiencies, the Investigating Commissioner observed that respondent’s signature on his comment appeared strikingly similar to signatures appearing in most of the attached documents.
The Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent admitted the notarizations were performed in his absence by his office secretary who had access to his notarial seal and records.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of notarial duties because his negligence gave his secretary opportunity to misuse notarial authority.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended immediate revocatio