A.C. No. 13557, October 04, 2023
Dominador C. Fonacier, Complainant, vs. Atty. Gregorio E. Maunahan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dominador C. Fonacier filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Maunahan for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The case stemmed from a Petition for the replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate copy of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) filed by a certain Anicia C. Garcia, represented by her alleged attorney-in-fact, Ma. Nida N. Garcia, with Atty. Maunahan as counsel. Atty. Maunahan notarized the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and Affidavit of Loss (AOL) executed by “Anicia” on March 13, 2009, and the Verification and Certification for the Petition on May 11, 2009. Fonacier opposed the Petition, asserting that the real Anicia C. Garcia had already died on June 7, 1999, and that the notarized documents were therefore spurious. The trial court ultimately dismissed the Petition.
Fonacier alleged that Atty. Maunahan notarized the documents without ascertaining the true identity of the affiant, making it appear that the deceased Anicia personally appeared before him. He further presented Certifications from the Clerk of Court showing that the document numbers Atty. Maunahan assigned to the SPA, AOL, and Verification in his notarial register actually pertained to entirely different instruments (a Certificate of Redemption, a Contract of Lease, and a Bilihan ng Bahay), indicating the notarial entries were falsified. In his defense, Atty. Maunahan claimed he acted in good faith, having been presented with community tax certificates and a prior SPA by the woman claiming to be Anicia, who purported to be a military nurse.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Gregorio E. Maunahan should be held administratively liable for violations of the Notarial Rules and the Lawyer’s Oath.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Maunahan is administratively liable. The Supreme 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. The 2004 Notarial Rules impose a mandatory duty to verify the identity of the affiant through competent evidence. Atty. Maunahan failed in this fundamental duty. His reliance solely on community tax certificates, which are not considered competent evidence of identity under the rules, was grossly negligent. This failure directly led to the notarization of documents for a person who was already deceased for a decade.
Furthermore, the Court found the falsification of his notarial register to be an egregious violation. The Certifications from the Clerk of Court conclusively proved that the document numbers he indicated on the SPA, AOL, and Verification corresponded to different transactions entirely. This act of making false entries is a clear breach of his duty to maintain an accurate and truthful notarial record, constituting dishonesty. His actions undermined the integrity of notarized documents and the legal system. While good faith is a defense, it cannot excuse the failure to perform a mandatory duty and the affirmative act of falsifying the register. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Maunahan from the practice of law for two years, permanently disqualified him from being a notary public, and suspended his current notarial commission, if any.