A.C. No. 5095 - Aquino vs. Pascua

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5095)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that Atty. Edwin Pascua falsified two notarized instruments by making it appear that he had notarized: the Affidavit-Complaint of Joseph B. Acorda as Document No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998; and the Affidavit-Complaint of Remigio B. Domingo as Document No. 1214, Page No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998. Clerical certifications dated June 23 and July 26, 1999 from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, stated that neither entry appeared in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register and that the last recorded entry was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998, thus casting doubt on the alleged December 10, 1998 notarizations.

Respondent's Explanation and Complainants' Reply

In his comment dated September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two affidavit-complaints but attributed their absence from his Notarial Register to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, and attached her affidavit. The affidavit-complaints had been filed with the Civil Service Commission, impleading Lina M. Garan and the other complainants. The complainants filed a Motion to Join the Complaint and Reply to Respondent's Comment, asserting that the omission was not inadvertence but deliberate falsification. The Supreme Court granted the motion to join on November 16, 1999.

Investigation and Findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant

The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which reported on April 21, 2003. The Office emphasized that a notarial document was by law entitled to full faith and credit and that a notary must observe formalities, including entering in the notarial register in chronological order the nature of each instrument, the person appearing, assigning to each instrument a number corresponding to the register entry, stating the page of the register on the instrument, and leaving no blank lines, as required by Sec. 246, Article V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative Code. The Office noted that failure to make proper entries was a ground for revocation under Sec. 249, Article VI. The Office found that the questioned documents were not recorded and that the photocopy of Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register showed Document No. 1200 on Page 240 as the last entry executed on December 28, 1998, whereas the alleged Doc. Nos. 1213 and 1214 were shown on Page 243 and dated December 10, 1998, creating an untenable chronological inconsistency.

Bar Confidant's Assessment of Credibility and Circumstances

The Office of the Bar Confidant rejected the credibility of the secretary's affidavit as insufficient to excuse the omission and held that Atty. Pascua was bound by the acts of his staff. The Office observed that the affidavit of Acorda (Doc. No. 1213) surfaced only when Domingo's affidavit (Doc. No. 1214) was withdrawn in an administrative case that Atty. Pascua filed with the Civil Service Commission, a circumstance the Office found lent credence to the claim that Atty. Pascua ante-dated an affidavit to make it appear notarized on December 10, 1998. The Office concluded that Atty. Pascua had falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavits and had acted with dishonesty incompatible with his duties as a notary and as a member of the Bar.

Precedents and Recommended Sanctions by the Bar Confidant

The Office of the Bar Confidant cited authorities addressing notarial misconduct and penalties, including Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., Arrieta v. Llosa, and Maligsa v. Cabanting, to demonstrate established sanctions for notarial dishonesty. Considering it as Atty. Pascua's first offense, the Office recommended revocation of his notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Adoption of Findings and Legal Characterization of the Offense

After review, the Supreme Court adopted the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Court found Atty. Pascua guilty of misconduct for failing to register in his Notarial Register the affidavit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B. Domingo. The Court noted that misconduct generally meant wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose, while recognizing that the term did not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent, citing Salazar v. Limeta and related authorities.

Comparative Discipline and the Court's Exercise of Discretion

The Court reviewed precedents to inform the appropriate sanction. It recalled that in Arrieta v. Llosa the Court suspended the la

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5095)

Parties and Posture

Father Ranhilio C. Aquino and other named complainants filed a letter-complaint dated August 3, 1999, against Atty. Edwin Pascua alleging falsification of notarized documents.
Atty. Edwin Pascua filed a comment dated September 4, 1999 admitting notarization of the questioned documents but attributing omission from the Notarial Register to the oversight of his legal secretary.
The complainants moved to join the related Civil Service Commission proceedings and the Court granted their motion on November 16, 1999.
The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation, report, and recommendation which issued its report on April 21, 2003.
The Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Bar Confidant and rendered the final administrative judgment.

Key Facts

The questioned instruments were two affidavit-complaints purportedly notarized by Atty. Edwin Pascua as Doc. No. 1213 and Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, both dated December 10, 1998.
The Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao Clerk of Court certified on June 23 and July 26, 1999, that the entries did not appear in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register and that the last register entry shown was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998.
The affidavit-complaints were filed with the Civil Service Commission and impleaded the complainants as respondents in an administrative case initiated by Atty. Pascua.
A photocopy of the Notarial Register showed last recorded entry as Document No. 1200 on Page 240, creating a numbering and chronological inconsistency with Docs. 1213 and 1214 dated earlier but bearing higher numbers.
Lyn Elsie C. Patli, the legal secretary of Atty. Pascua, executed an affidavit asserting inadvertent omission, which Atty. Pascua submitted in support of his explanation.

Respondent's Explanation

Atty. Edwin Pascua admitted notarizing the two affidavit-complaints on December 10, 1998.
Atty. Edwin Pascua attributed his failure to enter the notarizations in the Notarial Register to oversight by his legal secretary.
Atty. Edwin Pascua submitted his secretary's affidavit as the sole evidentiary support for the asserted inadvertence.

Investigation Findings

The Office of the Bar Confidant found that the questioned documents were not recorded in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register as required by law.
The Office concluded that Atty. Pascua could not escape liability for omissions in his Notarial Register because a notary is bound by the acts of his staff.
The Office observed that the chronological numbering and dating created strong circumstantial evidence of ante-dating and false assignment of document numbers to the questioned affidavits.
The Office found the affidavit of Lyn Elsie C. Patli hardly credible as she was not a disinterested witness and her affidavit did not overcome the register evidence and surrounding circumstances.
The Office recommended revocation of Atty. Pascua's notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Legal Standards

The Court reiterated that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and that notaries must observe utmost care in performing notarial duties as stated in Realino v. Villamor.
The Court relied on Sec. 246, Article V, Title