A.C. No.

10695
March 18, 2015
CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO vs. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO
Legal and Judicial Ethics; Notarization; Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public
interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document,
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS: Atty. Joselito Troy Suello (Suello) notarized the documents for the
registration of the motorcycle of Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) which the
latter purchased from Emcor, Inc. Pitogo obtained a copy of the documents
from the Land Transportation Office and proceeded to Suellos office to
have the documents certified since these were important in his pending civil
case against Emcor, Inc. However, Suello ignored Pitogos request and
instead ordered his secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.
Upon noticing that there were discrepancies between the notarized
documents and the entries in the notarial register, Pitogo filed an AffidavitComplaint against Suello. In the Affidavit-Complaint, Suello claimed that he
certified the documents as true copies. Later, in his Position Paper, he
passed the blame to his secretary, claiming that it was his secretary who
certified Pitogos documents.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT SUELLO IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IN
KEEPING AND MAINTAINING HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making
that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the

confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be

undermined. Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is a
ground for revocation of notarial commission.
When Atty. Suelo negligently failed to enter the details of the
documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of the
said documents and on the credibility of the notarial register and the
notarial process. He violated the law which requires lawyers to promote
respect for law and legal processes. Suello also appeared to have committed
a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted. Initially, Suello claimed that he
certified the documents as true copies. Later, he passed the blame to his
secretary. This violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct.
The secretary cannot be held responsible for the erroneous entries in
the notarial register. The notarial commission is a license held personally
by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public
alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his
or her notarial register. Suellos apparent regret may alleviate the injury
done privately, but it does not change the nature of the violation.