A.C. No. 4801; February 27, 2003
Mena U. Gerona, complainant, vs. Atty. Alfredo Datingaling, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mena U. Gerona filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alfredo Datingaling for falsifying and improperly notarizing a “Consent to Quarry” document. The document, dated July 2, 1997, purported to show that Gerona and her relatives consented to a quarry operation on their property in Batangas. Gerona alleged that neither she nor the other named parties, including minors, personally appeared before the respondent notary public on the stated date. She pointed out glaring irregularities: the first page of the document was typed on a different machine and was unsigned, the acknowledgment referenced a date before the purported signing, and it included minors and a person with an invalid residence certificate.
In his defense, Atty. Datingaling claimed the document was signed by the parties in Quezon City on July 2, 1997, and was merely presented to him for notarization in Batangas City the following day. He attributed the date discrepancy in the acknowledgment to a clerical oversight by his secretary. He submitted affidavits from the other parties to corroborate his story. However, a resolution from the Batangas Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause for falsification of a public document against the respondent, noting the document’s patent inconsistencies.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Alfredo Datingaling violated his duties as a notary public, warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Datingaling administratively liable. The Court emphasized the sacred duty of a notary public to ensure the personal appearance of the parties executing a document. The notary must verify their identities and ascertain that they signed the document willingly and intelligently. The respondent’s failure in this duty was evident from the document’s facial defects, which he admitted notarizing. The presence of minors as purported parties and the mismatched, unsigned first page were clear indicators that the notarization was irregular.
The Court held that by notarizing the document without the requisite personal appearance and despite its obvious flaws, the respondent violated Section 1(a) of the Notarial Law ( Act No. 2103 ). This act constituted gross negligence in the performance of his notarial duties, undermining public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. However, the Court dismissed the specific charge of falsification for lack of clear and convincing evidence in the administrative proceeding, without prejudice to any criminal case. As a penalty for his negligence, the Court suspended Atty. Datingaling from his commission as a notary public for a period of one year, with a stern warning against repetition.