PITOGO vs.

SUELLO

FACTS:

Cresenciano Pitogo (complainant) purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR INC. However, the latter
allegedly failed to register the same in his name. The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo’s
name base on three (3) documents given by the LTO and was notarized by Atty. Suello (respondent).
Pitogo obtained the documents and went to Suello’s office to have them certified, but the latter
“disowned the document”. Pitogo needed that document in his pending case in the Regional Trial Court.
He, thus, went to knew if the documents were notarized by Suello or were merely fabricated. Since no
reply from Suello, Pitogo filed a complaint that there were discrepancies between the three (3)
documents notarized by Suello and Suello’s entries in his notarial register. That the copy of the notarial
register attached to the records does not indicate the Book number. In his defense, Suello explained that
it was her secretary who certified the document acting without authority.

ISSUE:

WON respondent Suello is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining
his notarial register.

HELD:

Yes, respondent is administratively liable.

Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the public relies on when they
encounter written documents and engage in written transactions. It is the duty of the notary public to
protect the integrity of the notarial acts by ensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care.
Sec. 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules states or enumerated the entries to be recorded. Failure to properly
record entries in the notarial register is also a ground for revocation of notarial commission.

In this case, respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the 3 documents in his notarial
register. He also cast doubt on the authenticity of the complainant’s documents and the credibility of the
notarial register and notarial process. He violated the rule that requires a lawyer to promote respect for
law and legal processes. He also committed falsehood in his pleadings, particularly, in his answer
claiming that he had certified the complainant’s documents as true copies and, to be later on, passed
the blame to his secretary. Which violates the Code of Professional Responsibility that prohibits a lawyer
from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct.

Moreover, respondent’s secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial
register. The notary public alone is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his or her
notarial register.

PENALTY: Suspended from practice of law for three (3) months.