G.R. No. A.C. No. 12877, December 07, 2020
Francisco Domagoso, Complainant, vs. Atty. Socrates G. Maranan, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a referral by the Office of the Ombudsman to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Ombudsman had dismissed a criminal complaint filed by respondent Atty. Socrates G. Maranan against then Vice Mayor Francisco Domagoso for Falsification of Public Documents and violation of R.A. No. 3019 . The complaint pertained to consultancy contracts Domagoso signed, which Atty. Maranan allegedly notarized. In his defense, Domagoso pointed out that it was Atty. Maranan who notarized the subject contracts. Consequently, the Ombudsman referred the matter to the IBP to determine Atty. Maranan’s potential administrative liability for the notarization.
Atty. Maranan denied authorship and notarization of the contracts, asserting that the signatures appearing as his were forgeries, as evidenced by a disparity with his specimen signatures on file. He further averred that these contracts did not appear in his submitted monthly notarial reports. The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal for lack of clear and convincing evidence. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this, finding substantial evidence of a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

ISSUE

Whether or not grounds exist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors and held Atty. Maranan administratively liable. The Court emphasized the profound public interest imbued in the act of notarization. A notarial seal converts a private document into a public instrument, conferring upon it full faith and credit. Consequently, a notary public must exercise the highest degree of care in the performance of his duties and in safeguarding his notarial seal.
The Court ruled that while Atty. Maranan claimed forgery and the signatures on the contracts were dissimilar to his specimens, he could not be completely exculpated. The consultancy contracts indisputably bore his notarial seal. Under Section 2, Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules, a notary public has the affirmative duty to keep his official seal secure and accessible only to himself or a duly authorized person. The presence of his seal on the documents is prima facie evidence that they were notarized by him, or at the very least, that he failed in his duty to safeguard his seal. His failure to prevent its misuse constituted a violation of his duties as a notary public. Therefore, Atty. Maranan was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court imposed the following penalties: suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months; immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.