EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5095. November 28, 2007.]

Father RANHILIO C. AQUINO, LINA M. GARAN, ESTRELLA C.

LOZADA, POLICARPIO L. MABBORANG, DEXTER R. MUNAR, MONICO
U. TENEDRO, ANDY R. QUEBRAL, NESTOR T. RIVERA, EDUARDO C.
RICAMORA, ARTHUR G. IBAÑEZ, AURELIO C. CALDEZ and DENU A.
AGATEP , complainants, vs . Atty. EDWIN PASCUA , respondent.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ , J : p

For our resolution is the letter-complaint dated August 3, 1999 of Father Ranhilio
C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial Academy, joined by Lina M.
Garan and the other above-named complainants, against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary
Public in Cagayan.
In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsi ed two
documents committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "A davit-Complaint"
of one Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243,
Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998".
(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "A davit-
Complaint" of one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No. 1214,
Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty. Angel
Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certi ed that none of the
above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that the last entry therein
was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998; and that, therefore, he could
not have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998.
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua
admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but they were
not entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie
C. Patli, whose affidavit was attached to his comment. cCSEaA

The a davit-complaints referred to in the notarized documents were led by

Atty. Pascua with the Civil Service Commission. Impleaded as respondents therein
were Lina M. Garan and the other above-named complainants. They led with this Court
a "Motion to Join the Complaint and Reply to Respondent's Comment." They maintain
that Atty. Pascua's omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of
falsification. 1 On November 16, 1999, we granted their motion. 2
Thereafter, we referred the case to the O ce of the Bar Con dant for
investigation, report and recommendation.
On April 21, 2003, the O ce of the Bar Con dant issued its Report and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Recommendation partly reproduced as follows:
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the
formalities and the basic requirement in the performance of their duties (Realino
v. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318).
Under the notarial law, "the notary public shall enter in such register, in
chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging
the instrument, . . . . The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register,
and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which
the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries" (Sec. 246, Article
V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative Code).

Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law is a ground for
revocation of his commission (Sec. 249, Article VI).
In the instant case, there is no question that the subject documents
allegedly notarized by Atty. Pascua were not recorded in his notarial register.
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to
oversight of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability.
His failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly
notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by
the acts of his staff.
The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from true.

The photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which he
notarized on December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page 240. On the other
hand, the two a davit-complaints allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 are
Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, respectively, under Page No. 243, Book III. Thus,
Fr. Ranhilio and the other complainants are, therefore, correct in maintaining that
Atty. Pascua falsely assigned ctitious numbers to the questioned a davit-
complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a Notary Public, but also as
a member of the Bar. HDcaAI

This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of
inadvertence by Atty. Pascua is the a davit of his own secretary which is hardly
credible since the latter cannot be considered a disinterested witness or party.
Noteworthy also is the fact that the questioned a davit of Acorda (Doc.
No. 1213) was submitted only when Domingo's a davit (Doc. No. 1214) was
withdrawn in the administrative case led by Atty. Pascua against Lina Garan, et
al. with the CSC. This circumstance lends credence to the submission of herein
complainants that Atty. Pascua ante-dated another a davit-complaint making it
appear as notarized on December 10, 1998 and entered as Document No. 1213. It
may not be sheer coincidence then that both documents are dated December 10,
1998 and numbered as 1213 and 1214.
A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the con dence and trust reposed by the public in the
delity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession ( Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 SCRA 409).

As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Pascua is mandated

to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his o ce, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any

misconduct in his professional or private capacity . The Court has
invariably imposed a penalty for notaries public who were found guilty of
dishonesty or misconduct in the performance of their duties .

In Villarin v. Sabate, Jr. (325 SCRA 123), respondent lawyer was suspended
from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one year for notarizing a
document without a ants appearing before him, and for notarizing the same
instrument of which he was one of the signatories. The Court held that
respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duties as a
notary public.

In Arrieta v. Llosa (282 SCRA 248), respondent lawyer who certi ed under
oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were dead was
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning
that another infraction would be dealt with more severely. In said case, the Court
did not impose the supreme penalty of disbarment, it being the respondent's rst
offense.

In Maligsa v. Cabanting (272 SCRA 409), respondent lawyer was disbarred

from the practice of law, after being found guilty of notarizing a ctitious or
spurious document. The Court considered the seriousness of the offense and his
previous misconduct for which he was suspended for six months from the
practice of law. IacHAE

It appearing that this is the rst offense of Atty. Pascua, a suspension

from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months may be considered enough
penalty for him as a lawyer. Considering that his offense is also a ground for
revocation of notarial commission, the same should also be imposed upon him.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully recommended that the
notarial commission of Atty. EDWIN V. PASCUA, if still existing, be REVOKED and
that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months." 3

After a close review of the records of this case, we resolve to adopt the ndings
of facts and conclusion of law by the O ce of the Bar Con dant. We nd Atty. Pascua
guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties for failing to register in his
Notarial Register the a davit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B.
Domingo.
"Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated
by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. 4 The term, however, does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. 5
The penalty to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed by a lawyer is
addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In Arrieta v. Llosa, 6 wherein Atty. Joel
A. Llosa notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were
already dead, this Court held that such wrongful act "constitutes misconduct" and thus
imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months,
this being his rst administrative offense. Also, in Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, 7 we
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Mario G. Ramos and suspended him from the
practice of law for six months for violating the Notarial Law in not registering in his
notarial book the Deed of Absolute Sale he notarized. In Mondejar v. Rubia, 8 however, a
lesser penalty of one month suspension from the practice of law was imposed on Atty.
Vivian G. Rubia for making a false declaration in the document she notarized.
In the present case, considering that this is Atty. Pascua's rst offense, we
believe that the imposition of a three-month suspension from the practice of law upon
him is in order. Likewise, since his offense is a ground for revocation of notarial
commission, the same should also be imposed upon him.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna,
Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J. and Quisumbing, J., are on official leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 18-20.

2. Id., p. 22.
3. Records, pp. 34-38. HTcDEa

4. Salazar v. Limeta, A.M. No. P-04-1908, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 27, citing Loyao, Jr. v.
Caube, 402 SCRA 33 (April 30, 2003); Words and Phrases, Vol. 27, p. 466; Sewell v.
Sharp, La App., 102 So 2d 259, 261.
5. Salazar v. Limeta, id., citing State Ex Rel Asbaugh v. Bahr, 40 N.E. 2d 677, 680, 68 Ohio
App. 308.
6. A.C. No. 4369, November 28, 1997, 282 SCRA 248.

7. Adm. Case No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498.

8. A.C. Nos. 5907 and 5942, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 1.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com