G.R. No. A.C. No. 12443. March 14, 2022
BERNALDO E. VALDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. WINSTON B. HIPE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Bernaldo E. Valdez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe for allegedly violating the lawyer’s oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint stemmed from an affidavit executed by respondent in support of a counter-affidavit, wherein he stated that he notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Verification/Certification) executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe on April 11, 2016, with notarial details “Doc. No. 379; Page No. 76; Book No. XXXI; Series of 2016.” Complainant pointed out that a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC) dated February 9, 2018, indicated that the said notarial details referred to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death executed by Helen G. Mesa, not the Verification/Certification. The OCC-RTC certification confirmed that respondent had submitted his Notarial Reports for the period but that Doc. No. 379, Book No. XXXI, Series of 2016 referred to the Affidavit of Circumstances of Death. Complainant alleged this was a violation of the Notarial Rules. In his Comment, respondent admitted notarizing the Verification/Certification on April 11, 2016, and acknowledged that he might have failed to include it in his notarial report submitted to the OCC-RTC. He claimed this failure was due to inadvertence and his heavy workload, not bad faith, apologized for the mistake, and promised to be more circumspect. He also noted it was his first administrative charge in over eighteen years as a notary public and cited his advanced age (78 years old).

ISSUE

Whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court ruled that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting private documents into public documents admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. Notaries public must observe with utmost care the requirements of their duties, including maintaining a notarial register and recording all notarial acts at the time of notarization as specified under Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent’s failure to record the Verification/Certification in his notarial register and his assignment of the same notarial details to two distinct documents (the Verification/Certification and the Affidavit of Circumstances of Death) amounted to falsely making it appear the document was notarized when it was not properly recorded. This non-appearance in the notarial records undermines public confidence in notarized documents. Respondent’s own admission of the violation made the principle of res ipsa loquitur applicable, establishing his administrative liability without need for a formal investigation. The failure to enter notarial acts in the register constitutes dereliction of duty warranting disciplinary action. Considering the circumstances—respondent committed a single infraction without shown malice or bad faith, had over 18 years of service as a notary public with no prior administrative record, admitted his infraction and apologized, and is of advanced age—the Court accorded leniency. Following case law, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. (The full text indicates the penalty was to be stated in the dispositive portion, which is cut off in the provided text, but based on the cited precedents like Orenia v. Gonzales and Rico v. Attys. Madrazo, Tan, and Delante for similar single infractions with mitigating factors, the standard penalty applied is three-month suspension from law practice and one-year disqualification from being a notary public.)