A.C. No. 13343. September 14, 2022
Rene B. Carandang, Complainant, vs. Atty. Alfredo Ramirez, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rene B. Carandang filed a disbarment case against Atty. Alfredo Ramirez, Jr. for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from a notarized Deed of Sale of a Nissan Almera dated August 20, 2014, which complainant denied executing or appearing before the respondent to acknowledge. This led to related criminal cases for falsification. In his defense in those cases, respondent submitted a sworn statement claiming he personally witnessed and notarized not only the disputed Nissan deed but also a Deed of Sale for a Black Toyota Vios and a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage for a Silver Toyota Vios, providing specific notarial register details for each.
A critical certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) in Biñan City, Laguna, revealed major discrepancies. It confirmed that the Black Vios Deed and the Nissan Deed, both bearing the same notarial details (Doc. No. 450, Page 90, Book II, Series of 2014), were not among the documents respondent submitted. Furthermore, the OCC found that the document listed as Doc. No. 496, Page 100, Book I in respondent’s register was a “Request for Termination of Housing Loan,” not the Silver Vios Deed of Sale he claimed to have notarized.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Alfredo Ramirez, Jr. should be held administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable and imposed sanctions. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but imbues a document with public faith, requiring notaries public to observe the utmost care and fidelity to the rules. Respondent’s failure to ensure the submitted notarial reports matched the documents he claimed to have notarized constituted a clear violation. The OCC certification directly contradicted his sworn statement, proving he notarized documents without properly recording them in his register or submitting them, in breach of Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules.
The Court applied the doctrine from Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, which holds that a notary public’s failure to submit a notarial report to the Clerk of Court as required creates a presumption that the notarization was irregular. Respondent’s contradictory statements in the criminal cases—first claiming he witnessed the signing, then later stating the documents were pre-signed—further demonstrated negligence and undermined the integrity of the notarial process. His failure to participate in the IBP proceedings and submit an answer or position paper was deemed a waiver of his right to present evidence. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if still existing), and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, affirming the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation.