A.C. No. 13372. October 12, 2022. JUANITO V. PARAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JONATHAN J. DE PAZ, RESPONDENT.
FACTS

Complainant Juanito V. Paras filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jonathan J. De Paz for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Paras alleged that Atty. De Paz notarized two documents for Sergio Antonio Paras, Jr.: a Last Will and Testament and an Affidavit of Admission of Paternity. The complainant asserted these documents were forgeries, as a forensic report indicated the signature on the Will differed from Sergio’s known signatures. He further charged that Atty. De Paz failed to record these documents in his notarial register and did not submit duplicate copies to the Clerk of Court as required.
In his defense, Atty. De Paz admitted notarizing the documents but maintained they were genuine, executed by Sergio himself with witnesses present. He conceded the documents were not entered in his notarial register but attributed this omission to the inadvertence of his office clerk. He argued this clerical failure did not render the documents fraudulent and claimed he was not obligated to retain or submit copies.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jonathan J. De Paz should be held administratively liable for his actions in notarizing the subject documents.

RULING

Yes, Atty. De Paz is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that notarization is a public function imbued with substantial public interest, converting private documents into public instruments entitled to full faith and credence. Consequently, a notary public must observe the prescribed rules with utmost care and diligence. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandate the maintenance of a chronological notarial register, the assignment of corresponding register numbers to each document, and the monthly submission of certified entries and duplicate originals to the Clerk of Court.
Atty. De Paz’s admission of the non-registration and non-submission of the documents constituted a clear violation of these mandatory rules. His defense of clerical inadvertence is unavailing. A lawyer-notary public bears personal, non-delegable responsibility for all entries in the notarial register and for compliance with all notarial regulations. The negligence of a subordinate is directly imputable to the lawyer who has a duty to exercise strict supervision. These lapses breached his oath and his duties under Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. While the Court found insufficient evidence to conclusively prove the documents were forged based on the records, the procedural violations alone warranted sanction. The Court modified the IBP’s recommendation, imposing a three-month suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for one year, with a stern warning against repetition.