Upholding Integrity: Attorney Liability for Notarial Register Errors in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but a public service invested with substantial interest. In Pitogo v. Suello (A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015), the Court reminded all notaries public that the notarial register is a sacred record, and any negligence in keeping it undermines public confidence in the entire legal system. The case serves as a clear warning: a notary public cannot delegate the duty of recording notarial acts, nor can they escape liability by blaming office staff.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Crescenciano M. Pitogo purchased a motorcycle from Emcor, Inc., which allegedly failed to register the vehicle under his name. Pitogo filed a civil complaint before the Regional Trial Court against the company. The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo's name based on three documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello.

When Pitogo sought certification of these documents from Suello's office, the lawyer "disowned" them. Pitogo later discovered discrepancies between the documents and Suello's notarial register. The register showed that the entry numbers corresponding to the three documents actually pertained to different instruments—not the Deed of Assignment and Deeds of Sale that appeared in the documents obtained from the Land Transportation Office.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Suello should be held administratively liable for the discrepancies in his notarial register and for failing to properly record the notarized documents.

The Ruling: Negligence in Keeping the Notarial Register

The Supreme Court found Suello guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of his notarial commission if presently commissioned, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.

The Court emphasized that under Rule VI, Section 2 of the Notarial Rules, a notary must record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number, date, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, names and addresses of principals, and other required details. Failure to make proper entries is itself a ground for revocation of the notarial commission under Rule XI, Section 1.

Why the Notarial Register Matters

The Court cited Bote v. Judge Eduardo to stress that a notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and enjoys the presumption of regularity. To contradict it, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. When a notary negligently fails to enter the details of documents, he casts doubt not only on the authenticity of those documents but also on the credibility of the notarial process itself.

The Secretary Defense Fails

Suello attempted to shift blame to his secretary, claiming she certified documents without authority. The Court rejected this defense outright. The notarial commission is a personal license held by the notary public and cannot be delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of entries in the notarial register. The Court also noted that Suello's apparent remorse came too late—only after a penalty was recommended—and was motivated by a desire to temper the penalty rather than genuine realization of wrongdoing.

Practical Takeaways

• Notaries must personally record every act. The duty to maintain the notarial register is non-delegable; a secretary's error is the notary's error.
• Accuracy is paramount. Entry numbers, page numbers, and document descriptions must match exactly. Discrepancies can invalidate the evidentiary value of notarized documents.
• Blame-shifting worsens liability. Denying responsibility or blaming staff can lead to additional findings of dishonest conduct under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalties are severe. Violations can result in suspension from law practice, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from future commission.
• The register is a public trust. Clients and courts rely on notarial records; negligence undermines the integrity of the entire legal system.

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