A.C. No. 9385 - MARIANO AGADAN, EDEN MOLLEJON, ARSENIO IGME, JOSE NUMBAR, CECILIA LANGAWAN, PABLO PALMA, JOSELITO CLAVERIA, MIGUEL FLORES, AND ALBERT GAYDOWEN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that respondents notarial commission, if still existing, be REVOKED immediately and that he be further PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for TWO (2) YEARS. Moreover, it is likewise recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of TWO (2) MONTHS. [12] In its September 19, 2007 Resolution No. XVIII-2007-82, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that Atty. Kilaans Notarial Commission be revoked and that he be disqualified from being appointed as Notary Public for two years, thereby deleting the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. Respondent moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XX-2012-41 dated January 15, 2012. After a careful review of the records, we find that Atty. Kilaan committed the following infractions: 1) violation of the Notarial Law; 2) violation of the Lawyers Oath; and 3) violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his Motion for Reconsideration filed before the IBP Board of Governors, Atty. Kilaan passed on the blame to his secretary for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register. He asserted that being a private practitioner, he is burdened with cases thus he delegated to his secretary the job of recording the documents which he notarized in his Notarial Register. He argued that the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years is too harsh a penalty considering that he is a first-time offender; he prayed for leniency considering that his family depended on his income for their collective needs. It is settled that it is the notary public who is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in his Notarial Register. The Court is not persuaded by respondents explanation that he is burdened with cases thus he was constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his Notarial Register to his secretary. In fact, this argument has already been rebuffed by this Court in Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga , [13] viz : Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided: SEC. 245. Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees [therefore]. (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx SEC. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by