A.C. No. 12798

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the notarial commission of Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr. is ordered suspended for a period of one (1) year counted from the time of receipt of this Order for violating the express provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is further ordered to submit all the documents notarized by him within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [11] From the Executive Judge's view, it is clear in the evidence on record that Brenda and Joselito did not sign the Verification on the Petition, the SPA, and the Affidavit of Loss, and were in fact signed by Dela Cruz herself. Consequently, the Executive Judge found that the annotation respondent made that Brenda is personally known to him is absolutely false. [12] The Executive Judge also found respondent's defense - that nobody suffered any loss or injury-untenable, as a notary public's duties are dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. To appeal the suspension of his notarial commission, respondent filed a Petition for Review [13] dated January 16, 2020 before this Court, invoking Sections 1(c) and (d), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While admitting the factual circumstances as found by the Executive Judge, respondent " most sincerely, deeply, and humbly apologizes to the Honorable Executive Judge and to the Honorable Supreme Court for the oversight in his performance of notarial processes ." Respondent petitioned that his penalty be reduced for humanitarian and equitable considerations since this was his first offense since being commissioned as a notary public in 2001, and that his notarial practice is of great support to his spouse, who suffers complications from severe diabetes and recuperates from a kidney operation, and his minor daughter, who is physically disabled and blind. [14] Respondent maintained that he has no dishonest or selfish motive and that he was not in bad faith, as he relied on the confirmation and assurance made to him that the documents were indeed signed by the persons named therein. Recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant Upon receipt of respondent's Petition for Review, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) deemed it appropriate to docket the case as a regular administrative case against respondent. The OBC stated in its Report [15] dated February 18, 2020 that the case is covered by Sections 16 and 17, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and that respondent should have filed a motion for reconsideration on the Order which suspended his notarial commission instead of a Petition for Review. Noting that the contentions and issues raised in the Petition for Review had already been passed upon by the RTC, the OBC made the following recommendation: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that the instant administrative case be duly NOTED and APPROVED. The Order dated 7 January 2020 of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, which revoked the notarial commission of