G.R. No. A.C. No. 8637, September 15, 2014
Imelda Cato Gaddi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Lope M. Velasco, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Imelda Cato Gaddi, formerly the Operations and Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS), alleged that she was forced to write a handwritten admission stating that the opening of a BLSS branch in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya was unauthorized. This occurred on April 22, 2010, at the BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, under pressure from Angelo Lozada’s wife and the BLSS Programs Manager, who prevented her from leaving until she wrote it. She later discovered that this handwritten admission had been notarized by respondent Atty. Lope M. Velasco, Jr., and used by Angelo Lozada in a complaint against her. Gaddi denied ever appearing before Velasco for notarization, presenting any identification, or signing his notarial register. Velasco, a notary public for Makati City, claimed that Gaddi personally appeared before him on April 22, 2010, presented her BLSS ID and TIN ID for identification, and that he notarized the document and recorded it in his notarial register. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found Velasco liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, recommending a fine. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to revoke his notarial commission and disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Lope M. Velasco, Jr. violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty. The Court sustained the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. It held that notarization is a substantive act with public trust implications, converting private documents into public documents admissible as evidence. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must ensure the personal presence of the signatory, verify identity through competent evidence, and have the signatory sign the notarial register to confirm voluntariness. The notarial certificate in this case had unfilled spaces for the details of the identification presented, proving Velasco’s failure to properly ascertain Gaddi’s identity. His failure to present his notarial register to rebut Gaddi’s allegations led to the presumption that such evidence would be adverse. By notarizing a document without verifying the signatory’s identity and voluntariness, affixing his signature to an incomplete notarial certificate, and being dishonest in his pleadings, Velasco violated Rule IV, Sections 2(b) and 5(b), and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as well as Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court suspended Velasco from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, with a stern warning against repetition.