G.R. No. A.C. No. 8103; December 3, 2014
Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., Provincial Legal Officer, Bataan Capitol, Balanga City, Bataan, Complainant, vs. Atty. Renato C. Bagay, Respondent.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a letter dated June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay (respondent). The letter alleged that respondent notarized 18 documents while he was out of the country from March 13, 2008, to April 8, 2008, attending a workshop in Mexico. The documents, which included various Deeds of Donation and Deeds of Absolute Sale, were notarized on dates within that period. Affidavits from the persons who had the documents notarized indicated they did not see respondent sign the documents; instead, either his secretary signed them or the documents came out of the office already signed. A certification from the Bureau of Immigration confirmed respondent’s departure and return dates. In his comment, respondent admitted the documents were notarized by his secretary without his knowledge and authority while he was abroad, claiming his secretary did not realize the import of the notarization act. He apologized and stated he had terminated his secretary’s employment.

ISSUE

Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country constituted negligence.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent grossly negligent. Respondent admitted the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was abroad. The Court held that a notary public is responsible for the acts of his secretary and cannot relieve himself of responsibility by passing the blame. By leaving his office open, and his notarial seal and register accessible to his secretary, respondent exhibited blatant negligence. This negligence deceived the public and undermined the integrity of notarial acts, which are imbued with public interest. The Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation with modification. It revoked respondent’s notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment as a Notary Public for two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for three (3) months, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act and requires utmost care, as it converts private documents into public documents admissible as evidence.