A.C. No. 10317 - MA. SARITA G. GUERRERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MICHELLE V. GONZAGA AND ATTY. REMUS G. GULMATICO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly by the executive judge. They acknowledged their faults, accepted the penalty, learned their lessons, and solicited compassion not to be meted with additional penalties. [48] In due course, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) issued its Resolution [49] approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Macatangay, with modification in that both Atty. Gonzaga and Atty. Gulmatico were meted an additional penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Gonzaga and Atty. Gulmatico moved for reconsideration, [50] which the IBP Board granted. [51] In its Extended Resolution, [52] the IBP Board declared that the same factual narrations and evidence were raised and presented before both the executive judge and the IBP to penalize the same incident. However, the Resolutions of the executive judge holding them administratively liable had already attained finality; thus, the principle of immutability of judgments bars the present action. [53] Issue At its core, the Court must determine whether respondents hereon should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court resolves to adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP and dismisses the Complaint for lack of merit. Nevertheless, the Court takes this occasion to address several arguments and misconceptions of the parties to guide the Bench and the Bar. First , it bears stressing that the Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to supervise and correct errant notaries public as the power of supervision over all personnel of the Judiciary is vested unto the Court by no less than the Constitution itself. [54] This also flows from the basic principle that transgressions of notaries public render the individuals equally liable in their capacities as members of the legal profession. [55] While the Notarial Law found under Title IV, Chapter 11 of the Administrative Code [56] of 1917 does indeed grant supervisory authority over notaries public to the judges of the Courts of First Instance, [57] these provisions have long been superseded by the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice. [58] Thus, the assertion of respondent Atty. Gulmatico that the Supreme Court is without authority to entertain the instant Complaint has no leg to stand on. Second , Executive Judge Chua did not err in limiting her pronouncement and penalties to the violations of notarial rules committed by respondents. This is clear from the wording of Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, viz. : RULE XI Revocation of Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied. (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: (1) fails to keep a notarial register; (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries