3aepubltc of t}Je f)lJtltpptneg

~upreme QCourt
~anila
SECOND DIVISION

"IN RE: OMB-C-C-13-0104 A.C. No. 12877

ATTY. SOCRATES G.
MARANAN v. FRANCISCO
Present:
DOMAGOSO,"
Complainant,
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J ,
Chairperson,
- versus - GESMUNDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, and
ATTY. SOCRATES G.
ROSARIO,* JJ
MARANAN,
Respondent.
Promulgated:

x--------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The present administrative case stemmed from the 1st lndorsement 1

dated March 11, 2014 filed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II
Anna Francesca M. Limbo of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman),
referring its Resolution2 in Ol\1B-C-C- 13-01043 to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) in order to determine whether respondent Atty. Socrates G.
Maranan (Atty. Maranan) committed a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice4 (2004 Notarial Rules) and/or Code of Professional Responsibility in
relation to his notarization of the consultancy contracts subject of the said
case.

• Designated additiona l member per Specia l O rder No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020.
Rollo, p. 4 .
Id. at 5-10. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
3
For Fals ification of Public Documents and v iolation of Sec tion 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 301 9 .
4
A. M. No. 02-8- 13-SC (August I, 2004).
Decision 2 A.C. No. 12877

The Facts

Records bear out that Atty. Maranan filed a criminal complaint before
the Ombudsman against then Vice Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno"
Domagoso (Domagoso) of the City of Manila, charging him with Falsification
of Public Documents and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019
for having signed, in behalf of the Manila City Government, consultancy
contracts with persons who were either deceased or out of the country for
extended periods of time. 5 In defense, Domagoso claimed, among others, that
he signed the consultancy contracts upon the assurance of his former
Secretary, Abraham Cabochan, that everything was in order, and pointed out
that it was Atty. Maranan who actually notarized the subject contracts. 6 After
due proceedings, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Domagoso7
and refen-ed the matter to the IBP for determination of Atty. Maranan's
administrative liability for having notarized the consultancy contracts. 8

For his part, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized the
consultancy contracts, as shown by the wide disparity between his alleged
signatures in the said contracts and his signatures appearing in the facsimile
of signatures submitted to the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of
Comi, Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC). Moreover, he averred that the
consultancy contracts do not appear in any of his monthly notarial reports that
he regularly submitted to the RTC. 9

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation 10 dated July 15, 2015, the

Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the
administrative case against Atty. Maranan for lack of merit, finding that there
was lack of clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the allegations
against him. 1 1

In a Resolution 12 dated August 26, 2016, however, the IBP Board of

Governors resolved to reverse the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. In an Extended Resolution 13 dated March 1, 2017, the IBP
Board of Governors found that there was substantial evidence to prove that
Atty. Maranan violated the 2004 Notarial Rules, considering that it was his

Records show that the consultancy agreements were executed between Domagoso and Patr ic ia D.L.
Brucelango and Fernando S. Baltazar, who were both allegedly deceased, and Thelma G. Emutan and
Dennis D.V. Caingat, who were both abroad at the time the agreements were executed. (See rollo, pp.
5-6, 42-60, and 136).
6 Seeid.at6and 137.
7
See id. at 6-8 and 137- 138.
8
Id. at 12.
9
See id. at 21-3 I.
10
Id. at 108-110. Signed by Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Binas.
11
Seeid.at109-I I0.
12
Id. at 106-107. Signed by Secretary Avelino V. Sales, Jr.
13
Id. at 136-1 45. S igned by Assistant Director Juan Orendain P. Buted.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 12877

responsibility to impose safeguards against the unauthorized notarization of

documents in his register. Indeed, even if the signatures above his name as
notary public in the consultancy contracts do not appear to be his, Atty.
Maranan cannot sever himself from the supposed notarized documents as the
same bore his notarial seal. Accordingly, the IBP Board of Governors
recommended that: (a) Atty. Maranan be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months; (b) he be disqualified from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and (c) his current notarial
commission be i1runediately revoked. 14

Aggrieved, Atty. Maranan moved for reconsideration, 15 which was

denied in a Resolution 16 dated June 18, 2019.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether or not grounds
ex ist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable.

The Court's Ruling

After a judicious review of the records, the Court concurs with the
findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors that Atty.
Maranan should be held administratively liable in this case.

The act of notari zation is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with
substantive public interest. 17 A notary public is empowered to perform a
variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and
affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of these notarial
acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal
affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a
private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as
evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. 18 A
notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus,
a notary public should observe utmost care in performing his duties to
preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. 19

A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a document which

would indicate that the notary public has officially signed it. 20 Section 2, Rule
VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules states that every notary public shall have his

11
' Id.at 143-1 44 .
15 See motion for recons ideration dated September 8, 20 17; id. at 121- 126.
10
Id. at 130 .
17
See 1l.11g v. Atty. Belaro. Jr., A.C. No. 12408. Decembe r I 1, 20 19.
ia Castro v. Atty. Bigay, Jr , 8 I3 Phil. 882., 892(2017); citation omitted.
19
See Atty. Bartolome v. Atty. Basilio, Ti I Phil. I, 5(20 15).
10
Spouses Chua v. Msgr. Soriano, 549 Ph il. 578, 59 1 (2007).

J
Decision 4 A.C. N o. 12877

own notarial seal, which shall have the name of the city or province and the
word "Philippines," and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney' s
number on its face. The said seal shall only be possessed by the notary public,
to wit:

Section 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as

notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own
expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It
shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have
the name of the city or province and the word "Philippines" and his
own name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on the face
thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark, image
or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment
on which the writing appears.

xx x x (Emphases supplied)

Further, the 2004 Notarial Rules is explicit on the duties and obligations
of the notary public,21 which include the duty to secure and safeguard his
notarial seal so that no unauthorized persons can have access thereto, viz.:

Section 2. Official Seal. - xx x

xxxx

(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure
and shall be accessible 011/y to the notary public or the person duly
authorized by him.

x x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied)

In this case, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized the

consultancy contracts and claimed that his signatures therein as notary public
were forged. Although the IBP observed that Atty. Maranan's signatures22 in
the subject contracts were strikingly dissimilar to his specimen signatures23
on file before the Notarial Section of the RTC, and while it may likewise be
true that said contracts were not included in the notarial reports he submitted
thereto, he cannot claim full deniability and be exculpated from administrative
I iability because the contracts bore his notarial seal.

Instead of offering any plausible explanation as to how the consultancy

contracts came to be stamped with his notarial seal, Atty. Maranan merely
insisted that he never notarized nor authored said contracts, that his signatures
therein were forgeries, and that said contracts were not included in his notarial
reports.24 No justifiable explanation was given to prove that he had performed

21
Santiago v. Atty. Rafa nan, 483 Phil. 94, I 03 (2004).
22
Rollo, pp. 42-60.
23 See id. at 64.
24 See id. at 2 1-22 and 29-3 I.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 12877

his mandatory duties as a notary public as set forth under the 2004 Notarial
Rules, which include the duty to safeguard his notarial seal to prevent possible
tampering or misuse thereof. Clearly, Atty. Maranan had been remiss in his
obligation as a notary public. Had he been more vigilant in the performance
of his notarial duties, his notarial seal would not have been affixed in the
subject contracts. Indubitably, this failure on the part of Atty. Maranan
constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial Rules,25 for which he must be
held administratively liable.

The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon Atty.

Maranan involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts
of the case.26 In Ang v. Atty. Belaro, Jr. ,27 the Court imposed the following
penalties upon the respondent lawyer who committed a similar violation of
the notarial law, i.e., failure to safeguard his notarial seal: (a) suspension from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months; (b) disqualification from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and (c)
revocation of his notarial commission, if any. Finding the said penalties to
have been imposed by the IBP Board of Governors and in light of the
similarity in the infraction committed in this case, the Court therefore affinns
the same.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Socrates G. Maranan (Atty.

Maranan) is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision. Moreover, his
notarial commission, if any, is hereby IMMEDIATELY REVOKED, and he
is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period
of two (2) years.

Atty. Maranan is DIRECTED to immediately file a manifestation to

the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-
judicial bodies where he had entered his appearance as counsel.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
to be entered in Atty. Maranan's personal records as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its
chapters, and the Office of the Comi Administrator for circulation to all
courts.

25
See Ang- v. A tty. Belaro, Jr., supra note 17.
26
Endaya v. Atty. Oca, 4 57 Phil. 3 14, 329 (2003).
27
Supra note I 7.
Decis io n 6 A.C. No. 12877

SO ORDERED.

I A0, iJ.;JJJ
ESTELA 1\1:JPERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

AMY .~JAVIER
½.ssociate Justice

..,,,,
.4
RICARD