Case Summary (A.C. No. 12443)
Facts of the Case
The complainant asserted that he received an affidavit executed by the respondent, which was presented in support of a counter-affidavit filed by Atty. Calberito M. Caballero. The respondent notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for three individuals but failed to report it in his Notarial Report. The complainant cited a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of Quezon City, stating that the document mentioned by the respondent actually pertained to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death, thus indicating a deviation from proper notarial procedures that led to the filing of the administrative complaint.
Respondent's Defense
In his comment, the respondent admitted to executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification but claimed his omission in reporting it was due to inadvertence, attributed to his heavy workload. He contended that this incident was singular and that he had not been administratively charged before during his eighteen years of service. He expressed remorse and requested leniency considering his age.
Issue Presented
The core issue for the Court’s resolution was whether grounds existed to hold Atty. Hipe administratively liable.
Court's Ruling on Notarial Duties
The Court reiterated the critical importance of notarization, stating it is not a mere formality. Notarized documents carry evidentiary weight and must be executed with integrity. Notaries are obligated to maintain a comprehensive and accurate notarial register. The Court referenced Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, outlining specific requirements for entries in the notarial register, including comprehensive details pertaining to each notarization.
Findings of Administrative Violation
The Court established that the respondent failed to include the Verification/Certification in his notarial report, as confirmed by both his own admission and the Certification from the Clerk of Court. This omission led to the misleading presumption that a document was notarized when it was not, compromising the credibility associated with notarization. Therefore, the Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, making Atty. Hipe administratively liable for his inaction.
Penalty Consideration
The Court outlined existing jurisprudence where lawyers had faced disciplinary action for inadequacies in their notarial duties, indicating the severity of failing to maintain accurate notarial records. It emphasized that such failures can result in penalties including revocation of notarial commissions and suspension from the practice of law, which can vary based on context.
Circumstantial Factors
Despite the violation, the Court indicated that the circumstances surrounding the case warranted leniency. Atty. Hipe'
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12443)
Introduction
- The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Bernaldo E. Valdez against Atty. Winston B. Hipe.
- The complaint centers on allegations of violating the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The Facts
- Complainant Valdez claimed to have received an affidavit executed by Atty. Hipe that supported a counter-affidavit from Atty. Calberito M. Caballero.
- The affidavit in question included notarization details for a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe.
- Valdez highlighted a discrepancy: the Certification dated February 9, 2018, from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City indicated that the notarized document was actually an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death, not the Verification/Certification alleged by Hipe.
- Valdez filed the complaint based on this inconsistency, supported by copies of relevant documents including the affidavit, complaint, and the OCC-RTC Certification.
Procedural History
- The Court issued a Resolution requiring Atty. Hipe to respond to the complaint.
- In his Comment, Hipe admitted to executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification but acknowledged a failure to include it in his notarial report due to inadvertence and his workload.
- Hipe claimed this was the fir