A.C. No. 13332. August 10, 2022
Aloysius R. Pajarillo, Complainant, v. Atty. Archimedes O. Yanto, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Aloysius Pajarillo was a plaintiff in a civil case for recovery of ownership. The defendants, represented by respondent Atty. Archimedes Yanto, submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by Yanto as part of their exhibits. Suspecting irregularity, Pajarillo verified the document at the Clerk of Court’s office and discovered the submitted SPA was not recorded in Yanto’s notarial register. Instead, a different SPA, bearing identical notarial details (document, page, and book numbers), was registered. This prompted Pajarillo to file an administrative complaint for violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his defense, Atty. Yanto explained that on February 5, 2015, his clients signed two separate but similar SPAs for two different cases. He notarized both. His office staff, mistakenly believing the documents were identical, assigned the same notarial details to both and recorded only the SPA intended for a DENR case in the official register. The SPA for the civil case, though genuine, was thus unrecorded. Yanto maintained he did not falsify any document, attributing the error to an honest mistake by his staff.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Archimedes Yanto is administratively liable for violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality; it converts a private document into a public document, conferring upon it evidentiary weight and authenticity. Notaries public must therefore perform their duties with utmost care to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandate that every notarial act must be recorded in the notarial register with specific details, and each document must be given a unique entry number corresponding to its register entry.
The Court held that Yanto failed in this duty. The existence of two distinct SPAs bearing the same notarial details was a clear irregularity that violated the Rules. As a commissioned notary, Yanto bore the non-delegable, personal responsibility of ensuring the accuracy and proper recording of all notarial acts in his register. His reliance on staff to perform this core function constituted negligence, not merely an isolated honest mistake. This negligence tainted the integrity of the notarial process. Furthermore, as a lawyer, his disregard for the strict requirements of notarization violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Consequently, the Court revoked Yanto’s notarial commission (if still extant), disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for one year, and suspended him from the practice of law for three months. The penalty considered the absence of proven malice or substantive harm to the complainant but underscored the need to uphold the sanctity of the notarial system and the legal profession.