The Supreme Court, in A.C. No. 12443, has firmly reiterated the importance of diligence and accuracy in the performance of notarial duties. The Court found Atty. Winston B. Hipe administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This decision emphasizes that notarization is not a mere formality but a crucial act that imbues public trust in legal documents, and any deviation from established rules can lead to disciplinary action.

When Oversight Obscures Authenticity: The Case of Atty. Hipe’s Notarial Lapse

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Bernaldo E. Valdez against Atty. Winston B. Hipe. The heart of the issue stems from an affidavit executed by Atty. Hipe, where he mentioned notarizing a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Verification/Certification). The document purportedly bore specific notarial details. However, a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC) revealed a discrepancy. The certification indicated that the document number in question actually corresponded to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death, not the Verification/Certification. This inconsistency raised serious questions about the integrity of Atty. Hipe’s notarial practices and prompted the administrative complaint.

In his defense, Atty. Hipe admitted to notarizing the Verification/Certification but claimed that his failure to include it in his notarial report was due to inadvertence and a heavy workload. He also emphasized that this was an isolated incident in his eighteen years as a notary public. Despite his apologies and pleas for leniency, the Supreme Court had to address the gravity of the situation. The Court emphasizes the significance of notarization in the Philippine legal system. Notarization transforms a private document into a public one, granting it evidentiary weight and admissibility without further proof of authenticity.

The Court referenced relevant provisions from the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Rule VI, Section 2, which details the requirements for maintaining a notarial register. This rule mandates that notaries public record specific information for every notarial act. This information includes the entry number, date, type of act, description of the document, names and addresses of principals, evidence of identity, fees charged, and the location of notarization. Furthermore, notaries must assign a unique number to each instrument and document, corresponding to its entry in the register. These requirements ensure accountability and transparency in the notarization process.

RULE VI
NOTARIAL REGISTER
x x x x
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. — (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:

The Court emphasized that the respondent’s failure to properly record the Verification/Certification directly contravened these rules. The fact that the same notarial details were assigned to two distinct documents further compounded the violation. This oversight created doubt as to whether the Verification/Certification was genuinely notarized. Ultimately, this undermines the faith and credit typically afforded to notarized documents. The principle of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” was applied, highlighting that the very nature of the violation spoke to the respondent’s negligence. The Court noted it has the power to discipline lawyers based on the record without formal inquiry.

The Supreme Court acknowledged several mitigating factors in Atty. Hipe’s case. These included his long tenure as a notary public, the absence of prior administrative offenses, his admission of the infraction, his apology, and his advanced age. The Court has shown leniency in some administrative cases, considering factors such as the respondent’s length of service, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian concerns, and age, as detailed in Rayos v. Hernandez, 558 Phil. 228, 231-235 (2007). Taking these elements into account, the Court opted for a more lenient penalty than might otherwise be imposed.

While the Court recognized these mitigating circumstances, it also underscored the critical importance of upholding the integrity of the notarial process. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Atty. Winston B. Hipe guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for one month. His notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. Furthermore, he received a stern warning against future infractions. This decision serves as a reminder to all notaries public of their duty to meticulously adhere to the rules and regulations governing their office.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Hipe violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to properly record a notarial act and assigning the same notarial details to two different documents. This raised questions about the integrity of his notarial practices.
What is the significance of notarization in the Philippines?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. It is an act imbued with public interest, requiring notaries to perform their duties with utmost care.
What are the key requirements for maintaining a notarial register?	Rule VI, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice specifies that notaries must record details such as the entry number, date, type of act, description of the document, names and addresses of principals, and fees charged.
What is the principle of res ipsa loquitur, and how was it applied in this case?	Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.” The Supreme Court applied it because the very nature of Atty. Hipe’s violation—failing to properly record a notarial act—demonstrated negligence in his duties.
What mitigating factors did the Supreme Court consider in Atty. Hipe’s case?	The Court considered his long tenure as a notary public, the absence of prior administrative offenses, his admission of the infraction, his apology, and his advanced age. These factors contributed to a more lenient penalty.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Hipe?	Atty. Hipe was suspended from the practice of law for one month, his notarial commission was immediately revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. He also received a stern warning.
What is the implication of this ruling for other notaries public?	This ruling serves as a reminder to all notaries public to diligently adhere to the rules and regulations governing their office. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action, including suspension and revocation of their commission.
What should a notary public do if they make an error in their notarial register?	A notary public should immediately rectify the error by making a clear and accurate correction, properly initialed and dated. They should also report the error to the appropriate authorities as required by law.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the solemn responsibility entrusted to notaries public. By holding Atty. Hipe accountable for his negligence, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding the integrity of legal documentation and upholding public trust in the notarial process. This case serves as a crucial reminder for all legal professionals engaged in notarial practice to exercise the utmost diligence and care in the performance of their 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: BERNALDO E. VALDEZ VS. ATTY. WINSTON B. HIPE, A.C. No. 12443, March 14, 2022