In Crescenciano M. Pitogo v. Atty. Joselito Troy Suello, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the responsibilities of a notary public concerning the maintenance of a notarial register. The Court found Atty. Suello liable for negligence due to discrepancies between documents he notarized and the entries in his notarial register, emphasizing the importance of a notary’s duty to protect the integrity of notarial acts. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to all notaries public to exercise utmost care in performing their duties, as failure to do so can undermine public confidence in the notarial process and lead to disciplinary actions.

When Oversight Undermines Trust: A Notary’s Negligence Under Scrutiny

The case originated from a complaint filed by Crescenciano Pitogo against Atty. Joselito Troy Suello. Pitogo had purchased a motorcycle, and issues arose regarding its registration. Key to the registration were three documents purportedly notarized by Atty. Suello. However, discrepancies surfaced between these documents and the entries in Atty. Suello’s notarial register. When Pitogo sought to verify the authenticity of these documents, Atty. Suello allegedly disowned them, leading Pitogo to file a complaint alleging negligence and misconduct. The central legal question revolved around the extent of a notary public’s responsibility for maintaining an accurate notarial register and the consequences of failing to do so.

At the heart of this case lies the critical role of a **notary public** in the Philippine legal system. A notary public is authorized to perform various legal formalities, most notably the notarization of documents. Notarization imbues a private document with a public character, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. This process is not a mere formality; it is an act imbued with public interest and trust, as the Supreme Court emphasized in Bote v. Judge Eduardo:

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining an accurate **notarial register**. This register serves as a record of all notarial acts performed by the notary public. Rule VI of the Notarial Rules provides a detailed enumeration of the entries that must be recorded for every notarial act, including the date, time, type of act, title of the document, names and addresses of the principals, and the fees charged.

The obligation to maintain an accurate notarial register is not merely ministerial; it is a fundamental duty of a notary public. The failure to properly record entries in the register can have serious consequences, as outlined in Section 1 of Rule XI of the Notarial Rules, which provides grounds for revocation of a notarial commission. This obligation underscores the fact that a notary’s role is personal and non-delegable. Atty. Suello’s attempt to shift blame to his secretary for the discrepancies in the register was deemed unacceptable by the Court, reiterating that the responsibility for the correctness of the entries rests solely with the notary public.

The Court’s decision also addressed the issue of **dishonesty in pleadings**. Atty. Suello initially claimed to have certified the documents as true copies but later attributed this act to his secretary. The Court viewed this inconsistency as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest conduct. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code mandate that lawyers must uphold the law and refrain from deceitful behavior. This aspect of the ruling reinforces the ethical standards expected of lawyers, both in their professional and personal capacities.

Considering these violations, the Supreme Court found Atty. Suello guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The penalties imposed included suspension from the practice of law for three months, a stern warning against future violations, immediate revocation of his notarial commission (if currently commissioned), and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. This ruling highlights the gravity with which the Court views breaches of notarial duties and ethical standards.

This case serves as a significant reminder to all notaries public in the Philippines regarding their responsibilities. The ruling underscores the importance of meticulous record-keeping, adherence to ethical standards, and personal accountability in the performance of notarial acts. By emphasizing these principles, the Supreme Court aims to safeguard public trust in the notarial process and ensure the integrity of legal documents. Furthermore, this case illustrates the potential consequences of negligence or misconduct in the performance of notarial duties, which can include disciplinary actions and damage to one’s professional reputation.

The decision in Pitogo v. Suello aligns with established jurisprudence on the duties of notaries public. Prior cases, such as Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Kilaan, have similarly emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate notarial records and adhering to ethical standards. These cases collectively demonstrate the Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the notarial process and protecting the public from potential harm resulting from negligence or misconduct by notaries public.

Moreover, this ruling has practical implications for individuals and businesses that rely on notarized documents. It reinforces the assurance that notarized documents carry a presumption of authenticity and reliability. By holding notaries public accountable for their actions, the Court strengthens public confidence in the validity and enforceability of legal instruments. This, in turn, promotes stability and predictability in commercial transactions and legal proceedings. As a result, individuals and businesses can transact with greater assurance, knowing that the notarization process provides a reliable safeguard against fraud and misrepresentation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Suello was liable for discrepancies between documents he notarized and the entries in his notarial register. The Supreme Court addressed the responsibilities of a notary public concerning the maintenance of accurate records.
What is a notarial register?	A notarial register is an official record book where a notary public records all notarial acts performed, including details about the documents notarized, dates, parties involved, and fees charged. It serves as evidence of the notarization process and provides a means to verify the authenticity of notarized documents.
Why is maintaining an accurate notarial register important?	Maintaining an accurate notarial register is crucial because it ensures the integrity of the notarization process, provides a reliable record of legal transactions, and helps prevent fraud and misrepresentation. An accurate register enhances public trust in notarized documents.
What happens if a notary public fails to make proper entries in the register?	If a notary public fails to make proper entries in the register, they may face administrative sanctions, including revocation of their notarial commission and disqualification from being a notary public in the future. They may also be subject to disciplinary actions by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Can a notary public delegate the responsibility of maintaining the notarial register to someone else?	No, a notary public cannot delegate the responsibility of maintaining the notarial register to someone else. The duty to ensure the accuracy of the entries rests solely with the notary public, who is personally responsible for the register’s contents.
What ethical rules did Atty. Suello violate in this case?	Atty. Suello violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 requires lawyers to uphold the law, and Rule 1.01 prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
What penalties did Atty. Suello face for his violations?	Atty. Suello was suspended from the practice of law for three months, received a stern warning against future violations, had his notarial commission revoked (if currently commissioned), and was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
How does this ruling impact individuals using notarized documents?	This ruling reinforces the assurance that notarized documents carry a presumption of authenticity and reliability. By holding notaries public accountable, it strengthens public confidence in the validity and enforceability of legal instruments.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Pitogo v. Suello serves as an important reminder of the responsibilities and ethical obligations of notaries public in the Philippines. By emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate notarial registers and adhering to the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court aims to protect the integrity of the notarial process and safeguard public trust in legal documents. This case highlights the potential consequences of negligence or misconduct by notaries public and underscores the need for meticulous attention to detail and adherence to ethical standards in the performance of notarial duties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO VS. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015