THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6648. September 21, 2005.]

JOSEFINA P. SORIANO , complainant, vs . ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO ,

respondent.

Gonzalez & Associates Law Office for complainant.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; NOTARIES PUBLIC; NOTARIAL LAW; VIOLATED IN CASE AT

BAR. — Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary
information regarding the questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even
notarized said instrument even without the notation of the residence certi cate of the
party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial Law to
certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper
residence certi cate (or exemption from the residence certi cate) and to enter its number,
place of issue and date as part of the certi cation. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy
of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy
thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be
neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE;
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS; PUBLIC DOCUMENTS; NOTARIZATION
OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT CONVERTS IT INTO A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT MAKING IT
ADMISSIBLE IN COURT WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF OF ITS AUTHENTICITY. — We have
emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the
contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
quali ed or authorized may act as notary public. Notarization of a private document
converts it into a public instrument making it admissible in court without further proof of
its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face
and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties, lest, the con dence of the public in the integrity of the
document will be undermined.

RESOLUTION

GARCIA , J : p

Atty. Humberto B. Basco is charged by Jose na P. Soriano in a complaint 1 for

disbarment dated May 5, 2003, led with the Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar
of the Philippines ("IBP"), with violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised
Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the Notarial Law.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In her Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan summarized the
allegations of complainant as well as the answer of respondent in the following wise:
In her veri ed complaint, complainant made the following allegations:
That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco, Notary Public of
Manila testi ed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating
among others, that he allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by
complainant Jose na P. Soriano. He further testi ed that Jose na Soriano
personally appeared before him when he notarized the Deed of Sale. Since
complainant had never appeared before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco, had
not seen much less received copy of the alleged contract, complainant requested
for a copy of the alleged contract from the O ce of the Clerk of Court and Ex-
Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Manila concerning the aforementioned
Deed of Sale. Clerk of Court VII Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, issued a
Certi cation dated February 11, 2003 certifying that the alleged Deed of Sale
involving Jose na P. Soriano as vendor alleged to have been acknowledged
before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco was not among the document submitted
to said o ce (Annex "A" of Complaint). Complainant also received a certi ed true
copy of the notarial register of Notary Public Basco which disclosed his failure to
indicate the names of the witnesses, fees charged, the respective residence
certi cates of the parties to the documents which he notarized (Annex "B" of
Complaint). Although Atty. Basco was duty bound to furnish to complainant a
certi ed true copy of the alleged deed, he failed to do so despite demand therefor.
TIDaCE

Respondent led his Answer on June 10, 2003. In his defense, respondent
declared that on January 17, 1997, herein complainant together with her son,
Marcial P. Soriano went to his o ce located at 234 City Hall Bldg. both carrying
with them a duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signi ed that
complainant did convey to the son valuable property. Respondent further stated
that he instructed his staff secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the
clerical entry of notarial particulars of the original and copies of the said mutually
executed deed of sale. Respondent claim that his staff secretary of course,
retained a copy for our le and advised complainant and her son to immediately
return or call the office to furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate.

On October 7, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed CBD Resolution No. XVI-
2004-402 2 , adopting the report of the Investigating Commissioner and approving the
latter's recommendation that respondent's notarial commission be revoked and
respondent be reprimanded and warned that a breach of his professional duties shall be
dealt with more severely. Says the said report:
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the respondent is
guilty of dereliction of duty as a notary public.

The certi cation issued by the Clerk of Court, Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-
Buendia clearly show that the questioned document purportedly acknowledged
before the respondent on 17 January 1997 and entered as Doc. No. 424 Page No.
21, Book No. 67, Series of 1997, was not among the documents submitted by said
office (Annex "A" of the Complain).

The certi ed true copy of the notarial register of respondent disclosed that
there is no entry regarding the names of the witnesses to the documents neither
were the respective Community Tax Certi cates of the parties indicated in the
notarial register of respondent (Annex "B" of Complaint).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The respondent failed to furnish the complainant a copy of the alleged
Deed of Sale despite the fact that respondent admitted having retained a copy of
the document for their office file.

Respondent delegated to his secretary the clerical entry to his records,

evidently he failed to check the su ciency of the notarial entries which explains
the absence of the names of the witnesses and other pertinent data. CIAHaT

Notably, the allegations of the complainant remain uncontroverted by the

respondent. It is very evident that respondent in discharging the duties as notary
public failed to exercise diligence in his performance of his responsibilities as
such. Thus, it is recommended that respondent's notarial commission be revoked
and the respondent be reprimanded and warned that a breach of his professional
duties shall be dealt with more severely. 3

The IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XVI-2004-402, now before the Court for
final action, is well-taken.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary public. Sections
245 and 246 of the Revised Administrative Code respectively provide:
Sec. 245. Notarial Register. — Every notary public shall keep a register
to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his
o cial acts as notary; and he shall supply a certi ed copy of such record, or any
part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor.

Such register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Attorney-General

(Solicitor General) to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the
actual cost thereof, but o cers exercising the functions of notaries public ex-
officio shall be supplied with the register at Government expense. The register
shall be duly paged, and on the rst page, the Attorney-General (Solicitor General)
shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists.

Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. — 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 witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of
the execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by
him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is
a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall
likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and
shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each
calendar year. 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.TEcCHD

xxx xxx xxx

At the end of each week the notary shall certify in his register the number
of instruments executed, sworn to, acknowledged or protested before him; or if
none such, the certificate shall show this fact.

A certi ed copy of each month's entries as described in this section and a

certi ed copy of any instrument acknowledged before them shall within the rst
ten days of the month next following be forwarded by the notaries public to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 clerk of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province and
shall be led under the responsibility of such o cer: Provided, That if there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in
lieu of the certified copies herein required.

Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary
information regarding the questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even
notarized said instrument even without the notation of the residence certi cate of the
party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial Law to
certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper
residence certi cate (or exemption from the residence certi cate) and to enter its number,
place of issue and date as part of the certi cation. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy
of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy
thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be
neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission. 4
In Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, 5 we held:
. . . . The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's o cial acts.
Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public
documents. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records
and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or
instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and
cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the
evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to
record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it
appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. . . . . This is a
clear violation of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.

We have emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,

routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are quali ed or authorized may act as notary public. Notarization of a private
document converts it into a public instrument making it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties, lest, the con dence of the public in the
integrity of the document will be undermined. 6

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge

with delity the sacred duties appertaining to his o ce, such duties being dictated by
public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect
for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply
disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law. SHECcD

I n Protacio vs. Mendoza, 7 this Court suspended respondent's commission as a

notary public for one (1) year for his failure to send to the Clerk of Court of the proper RTC
the entries in his notarial registry.
WHEREFORE, for breach of the notarial law, the commission of respondent Atty.
Bienvenido G. Martin as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same negligent act charged in the complaint will be dealt with more
severely.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Let copies of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2. Rollo, p. 130.
3. Rollo, pp. 132-133.
4. Sec. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. — The following derelictions of duty on
the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be
sufficient ground for the revocation of the notarial commission, thus:

(a) The failure of the notary to keep a notarial register.

(b) The 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.
(c) The failure of the notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk of
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) within the first ten days of the month
next following.
(d) The failure of the notary to affix to acknowledgment the date of expiration of
his commission, as required by law.
(e) The failure of the notary to forward his notarial register, when filled, to the
proper clerk of court.
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates. (See C.A. 238, re abolition of cedula tax; see also C.A. 465, Sec. 6, re
presentation of residence certificate by a person liable to pay residence tax when
acknowledging document before a notary public.

(g) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates.

(h) Any other dereliction or act which shall appear to the judge to constitute good
cause for removal.

5. A.C. No. 5645, 383 SCRA 498 [2002].

6. Arrieta vs. Llosa, 346 Phil. 935 [1997], citing Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 917 [1997].
7. A.C No. 5764 395 SCRA 11 [2003].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com