Negligence in Notarial Duties: Attorney Liability and Public Trust

The Supreme Court has long held that a notary public occupies a position of public trust. When a lawyer fails to record notarized documents in the notarial register, that trust is broken — even if the omission was allegedly due to a staff member's oversight. In Aquino v. Pascua (A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007), the Court clarified that a notary is bound by the acts of his or her staff and cannot escape liability by blaming a secretary.

The Facts of the Case

Father Ranhilio C. Aquino and several other complainants filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan. The complaint alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents by making it appear that he had notarized two "Affidavit-Complaints" on December 10, 1998, entering them as "Doc. No. 1213" and "Doc. No. 1214" in Book III of his notarial register.

However, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Tuguegarao certified that these entries did not appear in Atty. Pascua's Notarial Register. The last entry therein was Document No. 1200, executed on December 28, 1998. This meant that Atty. Pascua could not have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998, as claimed.

The Defense of Oversight

In his defense, Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but claimed they were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli. He attached her affidavit to support this claim.

The Court was not persuaded. The photocopy of the notarial register showed that the last entry notarized on December 28, 1998 was Document No. 1200 on Page 240. Yet the two affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 were numbered 1213 and 1214 under Page 243. The Court found it highly suspicious that both documents bore consecutive numbers and the same date, while the register showed a gap of 13 document numbers over a period of 18 days.

The Duty to Record Notarial Acts

The Notarial Law requires a notary public to enter in the notarial register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him or her. The notary must give each instrument a number corresponding to the one in the register and state on the instrument the page or pages where it is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. Failure to make the proper entry in the notarial register is a ground for revocation of the notarial commission.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant and declared Atty. Pascua guilty of misconduct. The Court emphasized that "misconduct" does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent — it generally means wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct in either a professional or private capacity.

The Court noted that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the formalities and basic requirements in the performance of their duties. The Court cited Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos (Adm. Case No. 5645, July 2, 2002), where a lawyer was suspended for six months and his notarial commission revoked for failing to register a Deed of Absolute Sale he notarized.

Considering that this was Atty. Pascua's first offense, the Court imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, was ordered revoked.

Practical Takeaways

• A notary is bound by the acts of staff. Blaming a secretary or employee for failing to record notarial acts does not absolve the notary of liability. The notary bears personal responsibility for compliance with the Notarial Law.
• Recording is mandatory, not optional. Every notarized document must be entered in the notarial register in chronological order, with the proper document number and page reference. Leaving entries out — even unintentionally — is a ground for administrative discipline.
• Fictitious entries are treated as dishonesty. Assigning document numbers that do not correspond to actual register entries may be considered a clear case of falsification and dishonesty, which strikes at the core of a lawyer's integrity.
• Penalties can be severe. Even for a first offense, a lawyer-notary may face suspension from the practice of law and revocation of the notarial commission. Repeat offenses invite more severe sanctions, including possible disbarment.
• Public trust is paramount. The notarial office is impressed with public interest. Any act that lessens the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession is sanctionable.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.