A.C. No. 5838; January 17, 2005
Spouses Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo, complainants, vs. Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant spouses purchased land in December 1991 through a deed of sale bearing respondent Atty. Hidalgo’s notarial seal and signature, entered in his notarial register. Six years later, a dispute over the land’s ownership arose. In the ensuing estafa case, the opposing party presented an affidavit from Atty. Hidalgo denying he notarized the deed and alleging the spouses forged his signature. The spouses countered they could not have forged the signature or accessed his notarial seal and register, arguing the document contained all formalities of a notarized instrument.
In his defense, respondent denied notarizing the deed. He admitted working at a law firm where he had a notarial commission but claimed documents required senior lawyer approval and that office secretaries sometimes affixed the junior lawyers’ dry seals. He asserted he would have required personal appearance and identification, yet he only met complainant Benjamin Santuyo in 1997. He alleged his signature was forged and suggested the spouses may have conspired with office staff.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is administratively liable for his actions concerning the notarization of the disputed deed of sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his notarial duties. The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) findings. While the evidence did not conclusively prove respondent actually notarized the disputed deed—as complainants could not affirm they personally appeared before him and a signature discrepancy was noted—the IBP found respondent negligent for improperly delegating his notarial functions.
The legal logic centers on the sensitive and personal nature of a notary public’s responsibilities under the Notarial Law. A notary public must ensure the parties personally appear, are known, or provide competent evidence of identity, and must personally witness the signing and make entries in the notarial register. By his own admission, respondent allowed office secretaries to handle his notarial dry seal and make entries in his notarial register. This delegation created the possibility for misuse, as allegedly occurred here, and constitutes a grave dereliction of duty. The notarial commission is a public trust; respondent’s failure to personally safeguard and execute these duties breached that trust and undermined the integrity of notarized documents.
Consequently, the Court found respondent guilty of negligence. He was suspended from his commission as a notary public for two years, or disqualified from appointment for the same period if not currently commissioned, with a warning against future infractions.