AC 12551; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12551, July 08, 2020
Valentino C. Leano, Complainant, vs. Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Valentino C. Leano sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan and the revocation of his notarial commission for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint arose from an affidavit executed by Teresita Cauilan, which Atty. Salatan notarized and introduced as evidence in a civil case where Leano was the defendant. Leano alleged the affidavit contained several defects: it had no date of execution, the space for the affiant’s competent proof of identity was left blank, and Atty. Salatan’s MCLE compliance number was not indicated. Furthermore, a Certificate (Lack of Record) from the Clerk of Court showed the affidavit did not appear in Atty. Salatan’s notarial register. In his defense, Atty. Salatan claimed the failure to record the affidavit was a clerical error by his office staff, to whom he had delegated the mechanical task of making entries in the notarial register. He did not directly address the defects on the face of the affidavit, instead asserting he had dutifully ascertained the affiant was telling the truth.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the affidavit of Teresita Cauilan.
RULING
Yes, the Court found Atty. Salatan administratively liable for multiple violations of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. First, he violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by notarizing the affidavit without requiring or indicating the affiant’s competent proof of identity, as the space for it was left blank, and there was no claim the affiant was personally known to him. Second, he violated Section 5(b), Rule IV by affixing his signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate. Third, he violated Section 2(a), Rule VI by failing to record the notarization in his notarial register. His defense of delegating this recording duty to his staff compounded his liability, constituting a violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits delegating to an unqualified person a task that by law may only be performed by a lawyer. Following precedent, the Court imposed the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission (if still existing), perpetual disqualification from being a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.