Father Ranhilio Aquino vs Atty.

Edwin ascua

Facts:

Father Aquino as the Academic head of Philippine Judicial Academy, led a

complaint aainst Atty. Edwin Pascua, a !otary Pu"lic for violation of the !otarial
Practice #aw. $e alleed that Atty. Pascua falsied two documents wherein "oth
documents had %&oc. !o. '('), Pae !o. (*). +oo ---, eries of '//01 and "oth are
dated on &ecem"er '2, '//0. -t was shown "y the 3ler of 3ourt of R4354uuearao
that none of these entries appear in the !otarial Reister of Atty. Pascua. -n his
comment, Atty. Pascua admitted havin notari6ed the two documents on &ecem"er
'2, '//0, "ut they were not entered in his !otarial Reister due to the oversiht of
his leal secretary. 3omplainant maintains that Atty. Pascua7s omission was notdue
to inadvertence "ut a clear case of falsication.

-ssue:

8hether or not Atty. Pascua violated the !otarial Practice Rule.

Rulin:

9es. nder the notarial law, %the notary pu"lic shall enter in such reister, in
chronoloical order, the nature of each instrument e;ecuted, sworn to, or
acnowleded "efore him, the person e;ecutin, swearin to, or acnowledin the
instrument. Failure of the notary to mae the proper entry or entries in his notarial
reister touchin his notarial acts in the manner required "y law is a round for
revocation of his commission.1

Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional "ut due to oversiht
of his sta<. 8hichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape lia"ility. $is failure
to enter into his notarial reister the documents that he admittedly notari6ed is a
dereliction of duty on his part as a notary pu"lic and he is "ound "y the acts of his
sta<.

Furthermore, the claim of Atty. Pascua of simple inadvertence is untena"le.

4he photocopy of his notarial reister shows that the last entry which he notari6ed
on &ecem"er (0, '//0 is &ocument !o. '(22 on Pae (*2. =n the other hand, the
two a>davit5complaints alleedly notari6ed on &ecem"er '2, '//0 are &ocument
!os. '(') and '('*, respectively, under Pae !o. (*), +oo ---. 4hus, Fr. Ranhilio
and the other complainants are correct in maintainin that Atty. Pascua falsely
assined ctitious num"ers to the questioned a>davit5complaints, a clear
dishonesty on his part not only as a !otary Pu"lic, "ut also as a mem"er of the +ar.

A mem"er of the +ar may "e disciplined or dis"arred for any misconduct in
his professional or private capacity. 4he 3ourt has invaria"ly imposed a penalty for
notaries pu"lic who were found uilty of dishonesty or misconduct in the

performance of their duties.

 Atty Pascua is declared uilty of misconduct and is suspended from the
practice of law for ) months with a stern warnin that a repetition of the same act
will "e dealt with more severely. $is notarial commission is revoed.