AC 10695; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10695. March 18, 2015
CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Crescenciano M. Pitogo purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR, Inc., which allegedly failed to register it under his name, prompting him to file a civil case. The motorcycle was eventually registered based on three documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello. Pitogo obtained copies of these documents from the Land Transportation Office and requested Suello to certify their authenticity for use in his civil case. Suello did not reply. Pitogo then filed an administrative complaint, alleging discrepancies between the documents and Suello’s notarial register entries. The notarial register showed different documents corresponding to the same document numbers. Suello denied notarizing the documents and initially claimed he certified them, but later stated his secretary did so without authority. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification as a notary public for two years, later increased to four years by the IBP Board of Governors. Upon motion for reconsideration, the disqualification was reduced to two years.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello is administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty. He violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by negligently failing to properly record entries in his notarial register, which cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents and undermined public confidence in notarial acts. This also constituted a violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to promote respect for law and avoid dishonest conduct. Additionally, respondent committed falsehood in his pleadings by inconsistently claiming he certified the documents and then blaming his secretary. The Court modified the penalties, suspending respondent from the practice of law for three months, revoking his notarial commission (if existing), and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, with a stern warning for future violations.