A.C. No. 11165. February 6, 2017. ORLANDO S. CASTELO, ELENA C. CAMA, OSWALDO CASTELO, JOCELYN LLANILLO, AND BENJAMIN CASTELO, Complainants, v. ATTY. RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainants, the Castelo heirs, discovered they were defendants in an ejectment case filed by the Delens, who claimed ownership of the heirs’ residence based on a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) issued in their name. Investigation revealed this new TCT was derived from a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 2010, which purported to convey the property from the heirs’ parents, the Spouses Castelo, to the Delens. The Deed was notarized by respondent Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching. A critical flaw emerged: the mother, Perzidia S. Castelo, had already died on May 4, 2009, nearly a year before the Deed’s execution. Furthermore, the acknowledgment indicated only community tax certificates were presented for identification, contrary to the rules requiring competent evidence.
Atty. Ching denied notarizing the document, claiming forgery of his signature and lack of acquaintance with the parties. To verify, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a subpoena for Atty. Ching’s notarial register. The register confirmed the Deed in the complainants’ possession was a faithful copy of the original entry. Atty. Ching failed to attend the crucial conference where this evidence was presented and did not submit his position paper.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching is administratively liable for gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a notary public.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Ching is guilty of gross negligence. The Court affirmed the findings and modified penalty of the IBP Board of Governors. A notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity and public confidence; thus, a notary public must exercise the highest degree of care. Gross negligence in notarial duties includes the failure to ensure the physical presence of signatories and to verify their identities through competent evidence, as mandated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The evidence conclusively established the Deed was notarized despite the impossibility of one signatory’s presence due to her prior death. Atty. Ching’s defense of forgery was rejected. His failure to appear at the pivotal hearing to examine his own notarial register and refute the evidence, coupled with his failure to file a position paper, constituted an admission of the facts alleged. By notarizing a document where a purported signatory was deceased, he failed in his fundamental duty to ascertain the identities and voluntariness of the parties executing the instrument. This negligence facilitated the cancellation of the complainants’ title and subjected them to litigation, jeopardizing their property rights.
Accordingly, Atty. Ching was found guilty of gross negligence. His existing notarial commission was revoked, and he was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. Additionally, he was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a warning that repetition would incur a more severe penalty.