Notarial Duties Are Personal: Attorney's Lapses in Recording SPA Lead to Suspension

The Supreme Court recently reminded all lawyers that notarization is never a routine or mechanical act. In Pajarillo v. Yanto (A.C. No. 13332, August 10, 2022), the Court held a lawyer liable for failing to properly record notarized documents in his notarial register, even though the error was committed by his office staff and made in good faith. The case underscores that notarial duties are personal to the commissioned lawyer and cannot be delegated.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Aloysius Pajarillo was a plaintiff in a civil case for recovery of ownership and possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camarines Norte. The respondent, Atty. Archimedes Yanto, was counsel for the defendants. During the trial, the defendants presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by Atty. Yanto, which authorized one brother to represent the others in the case.

Suspecting something irregular, Pajarillo checked the notarial registry at the Office of the Clerk of Court. He discovered that the SPA used in the civil case was not recorded in Atty. Yanto's notarial register. Instead, a different SPA—intended for a case before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)—was registered under the same document number, page number, book number, and series.

Atty. Yanto explained that his clients had brought two nearly identical SPAs to his office on the same day. His staff mistakenly believed they were dealing with only one document and assigned a single set of notarial details to both. The copy submitted to the Clerk of Court was the DENR SPA, while the copy used in the civil case carried the same notarial details.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Yanto should be held administratively liable for the failure to record the SPA properly in his notarial register, even if the mistake was an honest one made by his staff.

The Ruling: Notarial Duties Are Personal

The Supreme Court ruled against Atty. Yanto, deviating from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommendation to dismiss the complaint. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit, and notaries public must observe the basic requirements of their duties with utmost care.

Under Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary must record in the notarial register, at the time of notarization, specific details for every notarial act—including the entry number, date, type of act, description of the document, and the names and addresses of the principals. Section 2(e) further requires that each document be given a number corresponding to the register and that the page number be stated on the document itself.

The Court found a "stark irregularity" in this case: two separate documents, involving two separate cases, were given the same notarial details. The Court stressed that the duty to record notarial acts belongs to the commissioned notary personally. Lawyers cannot simply pass the blame to their secretaries or office staff.

Commissioned notaries are charged by law with the obligation to personally record the notarial details to avoid any error that a non-lawyer may commit.

The Court also found that Atty. Yanto violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). By failing to record proper entries, he breached his duty under Canon 1 to uphold and obey the laws of the land. More significantly, delegating his notarial function to office staff violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person a task that only a member of the Bar may perform.

The Penalty

The Court revoked Atty. Yanto's 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 noted that the suspension was moderate because the negligent recording did not harm the complainant's substantive rights and was made without malice or intent to defraud.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarial record-keeping is a personal duty. A lawyer cannot delegate the task of recording notarial acts to staff, even if the staff member is competent and well-meaning.
• Every document gets unique details. Two different documents—even if nearly identical—must each receive their own entry number, page number, and series in the notarial register.
• Good faith is not a defense. An honest mistake by office staff does not absolve a notary public from administrative liability.
• Delegation is a separate violation. Assigning notarial functions to non-lawyers is a direct breach of the CPR, independent of the recording error itself.
• Consequences are serious. Violations can lead to revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law.

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