G.R. No. A.C. 5095 November 28, 2007
Father Ranhilio C. Aquino, et al. vs. Atty. Edwin Pascua

FACTS

Complainants, led by Father Ranhilio Aquino, alleged that respondent Atty. Edwin Pascua, a notary public, falsified two “Affidavit-Complaint” documents. He notarized affidavits for Joseph Acorda and Remigio Domingo on December 10, 1998, assigning them Document Nos. 1213 and 1214 in Book III. However, a certification from the Clerk of Court revealed these entries were absent from Atty. Pascua’s notarial register, whose last entry was Document No. 1200 dated December 28, 1998. The affidavits were used in a Civil Service Commission case against the complainants.
In his comment, Atty. Pascua admitted notarizing the documents but claimed the failure to record them was due to the oversight of his legal secretary. The complainants countered that this was not mere inadvertence but deliberate falsification, arguing the document numbers were fictitious since they were assigned beyond the last recorded entry in the register.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Edwin Pascua is administratively liable for misconduct for failing to record notarized documents in his notarial register and for assigning them fictitious document numbers.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Pascua is guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant. A notary public must faithfully comply with the Notarial Law, which requires the chronological entry of all instruments in the notarial register, assigning corresponding numbers without leaving blanks. Failure to do so is a ground for revocation of the notarial commission and constitutes misconduct.
The Court rejected the defense of secretarial oversight. Atty. Pascua, as the notary, bears full responsibility for the acts of his staff in the performance of his notarial duties. The evidence showed he assigned Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, which sequentially followed the last recorded entry (No. 1200), yet these were not entered. This act of assigning numbers for non-existent register entries was a clear dishonesty, not a simple omission. The notarized documents were afforded the presumption of regularity despite the missing register entries, which could mislead the public and the courts.
Considering his first offense and following precedents for violations of the Notarial Law, the Court imposed a penalty proportionate to the breach of public trust. Atty. Edwin Pascua was found GUILTY of misconduct. His notarial commission was ordered REVOKED, and he was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, with a stern warning against repetition.