G.R. No. Adm. Case No. 5764; January 13, 2003
REUBEN M. PROTACIO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO M. MENDOZA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Reuben M. Protacio, as president of Jumping Jap Trading Company, Inc. (JJTC, Inc.), filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza. The complaint stemmed from two documents notarized by respondent: a Board Resolution dated March 30, 1998, and a Deed of Assignment dated April 2, 1998. Complainant alleged his signature on both documents was forged, and he did not appear before the notary. He supported this with a certification from the Notarial Section of the Manila RTC that no copies were on file, as respondent failed to submit his notarial reports for those months. Further, immigration records showed one signatory, Nobuyasu Nemoto, was abroad on March 30, 1998, making his purported personal appearance impossible.
In his defense, respondent claimed the Board Resolution was prepared on March 30 but signed on March 31, 1998, after Nemoto’s return, and the date was inadvertently unchanged. He asserted complainant did sign the Deed of Assignment in his presence. He attributed the missing notarial reports to their loss during a residential transfer. As proof, he presented a subsequent letter allegedly from complainant referencing the Deed of Assignment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza violated his duties as a notary public.

RULING

Yes, respondent violated his notarial duties and was suspended from his commission as a notary public for one year. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but imbues a document with public faith, requiring notaries to observe utmost care. The law mandates that a notary public must require the physical presence of the parties executing the document. Respondent’s own admissions were fatal to his defense. He conceded the Board Resolution was signed on a date different from its notarized date, and he failed to submit his notarial reports. These failures constitute gross negligence. The notarial register is a vital record, and its absence, coupled with the failure to submit reports, directly contravenes the Notarial Law and the Administrative Code. The Court found respondent’s excuses—inadvertence and loss of records—unacceptable. While the evidence did not conclusively prove forgery, respondent’s negligent acts in notarizing documents without ensuring strict compliance with procedural safeguards warranted disciplinary action. The one-year suspension from his notarial commission serves as a penalty and a warning, aligning with precedents for similar first-offense negligence.