Notarial Duties Are Personal: Lessons From a Philippine Ombudsman Case on Administrative Finality

The Supreme Court has long held that a notary public's duties are personal and cannot be delegated to unqualified staff. In a recent disciplinary case, the Court reminded lawyers that failing to keep a proper notarial register—even due to a secretary's mistake—warrants administrative sanctions. The case also clarifies how the Court treats findings from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the finality of administrative decisions.

The Case: Orenia III v. Atty. Gonzales

In Orenia III v. Atty. Gonzales (A.C. No. 12766, October 7, 2020), the complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales. The complaint alleged that Atty. Gonzales, as a notary public, failed to record a Director's Certificate in his notarial register and assigned to it the same notarial details as a Deed of Sale he had notarized the previous day. The complainant also accused Atty. Gonzales of falsification, misrepresentation, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.

The Facts

Atty. Gonzales admitted that he failed to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial register. He also admitted that the certificate was given the same notarial details—Document No. 305, Page No. 62, Book No. X, Series of 1998—as the Deed of Sale he notarized a day earlier. He attributed these errors to the inadvertence of his former secretary.

The complainant also alleged that Atty. Gonzales misrepresented himself as the Corporate Secretary of Anaped Estate, Inc., and that he attempted to hit the complainant while uttering offensive words during a preliminary investigation. However, the complainant failed to submit evidence supporting these allegations and did not participate in the proceedings after filing his complaint.

The IBP Proceedings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors, however, reversed this recommendation. It imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revoked Atty. Gonzales' notarial commission, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

On partial reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors deleted the six-month suspension but affirmed the revocation and the two-year disqualification. The case then came before the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Gonzales should be held administratively liable for his failure to record a notarial act and his delegation of notarial duties to his secretary.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Board of Governors but modified the penalty. The Court held that Atty. Gonzales violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court emphasized that a notary public must keep a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts. Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires that every notarial act be recorded in the notarial register at the time of notarization. The required entries include the entry number, page number, date and time, type of notarial act, and description of the instrument.

The Court rejected Atty. Gonzales' excuse that his former secretary was responsible for the errors. Under Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. The duty to record notarial acts is personal to the notary public and cannot be delegated.

The Court also cited Section 1(b)(2), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which allows the revocation of a notary public's commission for failure to make proper entries in the notarial register. The Court found that Atty. Gonzales' failure to strictly comply with the rules seriously undermined the dependability of notarized documents.

As for the other allegations—falsification, misrepresentation, and the alleged physical assault—the Court brushed these aside. The complainant failed to adduce evidence and did not participate in the proceedings. There was no basis for the Court to deliberate on these issues.

The Penalty

The Court revoked Atty. Gonzales' notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and suspended him from the practice of law for three months. The Court warned that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarial duties are personal. A notary public cannot delegate the recording of notarial acts to a secretary or any other staff member. Doing so violates Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Every notarial act must be recorded. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires a chronological official notarial register with specific entries. Failure to record an act is a ground for revocation of the notarial commission.
• Good faith is not a defense. Attributing errors to a secretary's inadvertence does not excuse a notary public from liability. The duty to record is personal and non-delegable.
• Unsubstantiated allegations will not prosper. A complainant who fails to adduce evidence and abandons the proceedings cannot expect the Court to rule on unproven claims.
• Administrative penalties are graduated. The Court may impose revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned, and suspension from the practice of law, depending on the circumstances of each case.

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