ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF A LAWYER WHO DID NOT INCLUDE A DOCUMENT HE NOTARIZED IN THE NOTARIAL REPORT AND ASSIGNING TWO DOCUMENTS IN A SINGLE NOTARIAL ENTRY/DETAILS
BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
In the case of Bernaldo E. Valdez vs. Atty. Winston B. Hipe, A.C. No. 12443 (March 14, 2022), an administrative complaint was filed by complainant Bernaldo E. Valdez against respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe for failing to report or include in his notarial report a document he notarized and assigning two documents to one notarial entry/details. Complainant alleged that he received an Affidavit executed by respondent in support of a Counter-Affidavit, particularly Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. However, when checking with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC), the document with those notarial details pertains to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death.
The Supreme Court held that respondent’s failure to record the document in his notarial register amounts to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not. Likewise, the Court held that the non-appearance of the document or instrument in the notarial records without any copy therein creates doubt whether such document or instrument was indeed notarized. It is also effectively removed the credit and full faith which notarization generates on notarized documents.
As penalty for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules, the Supreme Court restated that it imposes the following: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law – the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case. The Court held that the following factors are considered: (1) number and/or gravity of the infraction or violations committed, respondent’s length of service, respondent’s acknowledgment of his/her infractions, feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, including respondent’s advanced age.
In the case of respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe, exercised leniency by just immediately revoking his notarial commission, was suspended to become a Notary Public for only one (1) year, and was merely suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month considering that: (1) respondent has been serving as a notary public for more than eighteen (18) years; (2) this is the first time respondent has been found administratively liable per the available records; (3) respondent has admitted and acknowledged his infraction, and has, in fact, apologized for his violation and vows to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a notary public; and (4) respondent’s advanced age.