A.C. No. 12274. October 07, 2020
Re: Order Dated December 5, 2017 in Adm. Case No. NP-008-17 (Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto vs. Atty. John Mark Tamaño) Issued by the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, Complainant, vs. Atty. John Mark Tamaño, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for the revocation of Atty. John Mark Tamaño’s notarial commission filed by Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto, Corporate Secretary of the United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. (UCSPAI). The complaint alleged that Atty. Tamaño notarized UCSPAI’s General Information Sheets (GIS) for the years 2010 to 2014 without the personal appearance of the affiants. Crucially, it was discovered that the notarial particulars (document number, page number, book number) appearing on these five GIS corresponded to entirely different documents recorded in Atty. Tamaño’s notarial register. This meant the GIS were not entered in his notarial books at all.
During proceedings, the parties stipulated that the GIS from 2010 to 2014 were not recorded in the notarial register. Atty. Tamaño admitted the lapse, attributing it to his office staff whom he tasked with filling in notarial details and maintaining the register after he signed the documents. He claimed he only discovered the omission upon receiving the complaint. The Executive Judge revoked his notarial commission, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for administrative action.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. John Mark Tamaño is administratively liable for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Tamaño is administratively liable. The Court found that he violated Section 2(a), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which mandates that a notary public must record in the notarial register every notarial act performed. By failing to record the five GIS, he neglected a fundamental duty. His defense of delegating this task to his staff is unacceptable. A notary public cannot delegate the responsibility of maintaining the notarial register, as it is a personal duty integral to the notarial function. This failure also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
The legal logic is grounded in the profound public interest in notarization. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, conferring on it the presumption of regularity and authenticity. The notarial register is a vital safeguard; it provides a official record to prevent fraud and authenticate transactions. A notary public acts as a public officer, and the integrity of this function demands strict personal compliance with procedural rules. Atty. Tamaño’s repeated failure over five years to ensure proper registration, regardless of the affiants’ actual appearance, undermined this integrity and betrayed public trust. Consequently, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for two years.