G.R. No. A.C. No. 5510. December 20, 2007.
SAJID D. AGAGON, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO F. BUSTAMANTE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed an administrative case against Atty. Artemio Bustamante for malpractice and violation of the lawyer’s oath. The complaint stemmed from a Deed of Sale notarized by respondent, which was presented to defeat the execution of a final labor judgment in favor of complainant’s wife. Verification revealed the Deed of Sale was not recorded in respondent’s notarial report submitted to the Clerk of Court. Instead, the notarial details (Doc. No. 375, Page 76, Book XXXIII, Series of 2000) corresponded to an unrelated Affidavit. Furthermore, the Community Tax Certificate numbers of the purported vendors were certified by the City Treasurer as fictitious.
Respondent admitted preparing the Deed of Sale but claimed the parties dictated their CTC numbers from memory and that the failure to report it was due to inadvertence. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated and found that the document was used to support a third-party claim in the labor case, attempting to show the levied business assets had been sold prior to execution. The IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded respondent committed gross negligence in his notarial duties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Artemio Bustamante is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the notarization of the Deed of Sale.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine formality but a public function imbued with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must exercise utmost care and diligence. Respondent failed in this duty on two counts. First, he notarized a document without verifying the authenticity of the affiants’ Community Tax Certificates, accepting dictated numbers without scrutiny, which turned out to be fictitious. This constitutes gross negligence, as a notary is required to ascertain the identity of the parties and the authenticity of their credentials. Second, he failed to include the Deed of Sale in his notarial report, a mandatory duty under the Notarial Law. His excuse of inadvertence is unacceptable, especially since the document was later used in a quasi-judicial proceeding, undermining the integrity of the notarial process. These acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Notarial Law, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months and revoked his notarial commission, disqualifying him from reappointment for one year.