1

A.C. No. 8574, August 16, 2017 executed in December 2005 but that the Community Tax Receipt of
CARMELO IRINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CLAYTON B. Renato was dated January 17, 2006. Also, that the CTR of [Carmelo] has
GUMANGAN, Respondent. not been indicated in the said document. Again, to [Carmelo], this smacks
DECISION of fraud.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by The court is not convinced. This may have been a typographical error
complainant Carmelo Iringan (Carmelo) against respondent Atty. Clayton attributable to human frailties. The intent to defraud or falsify was not
B. Gumangan (Atty. Gumangan) relative to Civil Case No. 518-09, shown by [Carmelo] through independent and credible evidences. Fraud
entitled Sps. Renato and Carmen A. Iringan v. Carmelo A. Iringan, for is not assumed.5
Illegal Detainer and Ejectment with Damages, before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC) of the City of Tabuk, Kalinga. The MTCC decreed:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [spouses
Civil Case No. 518-09 was instituted before the MTCC by spouses Iringan] and against Carmelo Iringan, ordering [Carmelo] to;
Renato (Renato) and Carmen Iringan (spouses Iringan) against Carmelo, 1. VACATE immediately the property in dispute and turnover
who is Renato's brother. The spouses Iringan alleged in their complaint peacefully its possession to the [spouses Iringan];
that they are the owners of a piece of land, with an area of about 625 2. Pay FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS a month from April
square meters, located in Tabuk, Kalinga, registered under Original 2, 2009 up to the time the finality of Judgment with interest at 6%
Certificate of Title No. P-8864 1 in Renato's name. A two-storey structure per annum;
stands on said piece of land, which was used as a restaurant with the 3. The total amount awarded above shall earn legal interest at
name "Emilia's Kitchenette." Renato acquired the right to operate said 12% per annum from the time judgment became final until the same
restaurant from his mother, Lourdes Iringan, by virtue of a Deed of shall have been fully paid;
Assignment to Operate Establishments2 dated January 19, 1982, for the 4. PAY TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS as attorney's
consideration of P5,000.00. Pursuant to a Contract of Lease 3 dated fees and cost of litigation; and
December 30, 2005, Renato agreed to lease to Carmelo the land and the 5. [P]ay the cost of the suit.6
two-storey building thereon (collectively referred to herein as the
premises) for a period of one year, for a monthly rental of P5,000.00. The Carmelo filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao,
Contract of Lease was notarized by Atty. Gumangan also on December Tabuk City, Kalinga, Branch 25, docketed as Civil Case No. 762. In a
30, 2005. The lease expired but Carmelo continued to possess the Decision7 dated May 25, 2010, the RTC affirmed in toto the MTCC
premises upon spouses Iringan's tolerance. In September 2008, the judgment. The RTC eventually issued a Writ of Execution and an Alias
spouses Iringan demanded that Carmelo vacate the premises but to no Writ of Execution dated November 2, 2010 and February 22, 2011,
avail. A Final Demand dated April 1, 2009 was served upon Carmelo on respectively, for the implementation of its judgment.
April 2, 2009, signed by Atty. Gumangan, with Renato's approval and
conformity. Carmelo, however, still refused to vacate the premises. The In the meantime, while Civil Case No. 762 was still pending before the
barangay heard the dispute between the spouses Iringan and Carmelo RTC, Carmelo instituted on April 5, 2010, before the Court, through the
on April 29, 2009 but no settlement was reached. Thus, the spouses Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), the present administrative
Iringan had no other recourse but to file Civil Case No. 518-09 for Illegal complaint8 against Atty. Gumangan, alleging as follows:
Detainer and Ejectment with Damages against Carmelo. 3. That [Atty. Gumangan] is a practicing attorney and a notary public,
principally based [in] Tabuk, Kalinga;
In his defense, Carmelo averred that he and Renato are brothers. The 4. That sometime on December 30, 2005, a "Contract of Lease" was
premises actually belonged to their late parents Sixto and Lourdes purportedly executed by and between [Carmelo] and Renato Iringan; This
Iringan, and upon their parents' deaths, the premises descended to document was prepared and notarized by [Atty. Gumangan];
Carmelo, Renato, and their other siblings. Hence, Renato is not the sole 5. That the aforecited "Contract of Lease" became the principal subject of
owner of the premises even though the certificate of title to the land is a Civil Case between [Carmelo] and Sps. Renato and Carmen Iringan
registered in his name alone. Renato is a mere trustee of the premises docketed as Civil Case No. 518-09; The original copy of the pertinent
for his siblings. The Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments did Summons (with the Complaint and annexes thereto) is made Annex "A"
not vest title to the premises upon the spouses Iringan as this was in and appended therewith is a certified machine copy of the said "Contract
derogation of the succession rights of Renato's siblings. Carmelo further of Lease" (Annex "C" of the Complaint);
claimed that the Contract of Lease for the premises was spurious as he 6. That the purported "Contract of Lease" is entirely spurious and
had never entered into such a contract with Renato. Carmelo asserted fraudulent; [Carmelo] never executed such instrument and did not appear
that he did not sign the Contract of Lease nor did he appear before Atty. before [Atty. Gumangan] for its due subscription under oath; [Carmelo]
Gumangan who notarized the same. never ever entered into any lease contract with Renato A. Iringan
whether verbal or in writing;
In its Decision4 dated September 24, 2009, the MTCC rendered a 7. That it is too obvious that the alleged Lease Contract prepared and
Decision in favor of the spouses Iringan. Particularly on the matter of the notarized by [Atty. Gumangan] is fraudulent since by simple examination,
Contract of Lease, the MTCC found: the same was executed and subscribed before [Atty. Gumangan] on
THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT OF LEASE EXECUTED BY THE  December 30, 2005, when in fact Renato Iringan's CTC (08768743)
PARTIES was issued on January 17, 2006; [Carmelo's] own CTC does not
appear thereon, meaning that he never appeared to execute it; That
Exhibit "D" of the [spouses Iringan] is the alleged "Spurious" Contract of besides not appearing before [Atty. Gumangan], [Carmelo] has not been
Lease. It is a document duly notarized before a Notary public. It was or seen the alleged witnesses to the contract;
executed with all the formalities required by law and duly acknowledged 8. That more importantly, [Carmelo] had not known, met or had any
before Atty. Clayton Gumangan. This Contract of Lease is a public transaction with [Atty. Gumangan]; He only saw him for the first
document, which needs no further proof of its content and is entitled to time in the Municipal Trial Court, Tabuk, Kalinga, during one of the
much faith and confidence, unless clear evidences show otherwise. This proceedings in Civil Case No. 518-09 where [Atty. Gumangan] happened
is where [Carmelo] failed. [Carmelo] offered no evidence tending to show to be present in attendance;
that said document is indeed spurious. What we have, are the allegations 9. Moreover, the said "Contract of Lease" was never filed with the notarial
of [Carmelo] and his witnesses, which allegations are, to say the least, report of [Atty. Gumangan] with the Office of the Clerk of Court of
self-serving and biased. Allegations are not proofs. Kalinga.; The Sworn Affidavit of Atty. Mary Jane A. Andomang (Regional
Trial Court, Branch 25, Clerk of Court) made Annex "B" hereof attests to
On this point, the [spouses Iringan] submitted the Affidavit of the  Notary this fact;
Public before whom the document was executed and acknowledged. In 10. That the very blatant act of [Atty. Gumangan] in preparing and
said Affidavit, Atty. Gumangan affirmed that he prepared the document notarizing said "Contract of Lease" bespeaks of wanton and willful
and that Carmelo and Renata Iringan signed the contract of lease in his violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility for lawyers; As
presence. There is no showing that Atty. Gumangan was telling a lie, or officers of the Court they are mandated not to involve themselves in
that he was ill-motivated. His affidavit rings true and is credible. fraudulent and deceitful acts, to the grave damage and prejudice of
xxxx private individuals;
Then too, we have the affidavit of the instrumental witnesses, in the 11. That [Atty. Gumangan] had not acted with honesty and faithfulness to
person of Hilda Langgaman and Narcisa Padua (Exhibit "Q"). They were the responsibilities and duties of his profession; He must then be
the witnesses to the execution of the contract at the office of Atty. sanctioned and subjected to disciplinary action by this Honorable
Gumangan. They saw with their own eyes Carmelo and Renato signing Supreme Court.9
the Contract of Lease. These are impartial witnesses. In order to discredit Carmelo prayed that Atty. Gumangan "be DISBARRED/SUSPENDED
the allegations of the Affidavit of Atty. Gumangan, [Carmelo] submitted from the practice of law, and with all the attendant accessory penalties
the Affidavit of Atty. Mary Jane Andomang to the effect that Atty. Clayton and fines to be justly imposed."10
Gumangan has not submitted his notarial register containing the
questioned document. But the non-submission of Atty. Gumangan of his In support of his allegations, Carmelo attached, among other documents,
notarial register does not preclude the fact that said document was the purported Contract of Lease between him and Renato and the
executed and notarized as claimed by the affiants. If any, it should be Affidavit11 dated September 3, 2009 of Mary Jane A. Andomang
Atty. Gumangan who is brought to task for his negligence, not the (Andomang), RTC Clerk of Court VI, certifying that Atty. Gumangan "did
[spouses Iringan]. The failure of Gumangan to submit his register should not submit his Notarial Report and a copy of a 'Contract of Lease,'
not prejudice the cause of the [spouses Iringan]. This Affidavit of Atty. appearing as Doc. No. 191, Page No. 39, Book No. X, Series of 2005."
Andomang only proved that Atty. Gumangan failed to submit his register.
It cannot disprove the due execution of the Contract of lease. Atty. Gumangan, in his Comment/Answer,12 asserted that Carmelo
instituted the instant administrative complaint to harass and embarrass
Much noise has been made on the fact that the document was allegedly
 2
him, and to extricate himself, Carmelo, from the felonious acts of evidence to the contrary.
dispossessing his very own brother of the latter's property.
Lastly, Atty. Gumangan submitted the Affidavit17 dated July 21, 2009 of
Atty. Gumangan admitted that he notarized the Contract of Lease, but one Margielyn Narag (Narag), Carmelo's employee at Emilia's
maintained that Carmelo, together with Renato, personally executed said Kitchenette from July 2008 to June 2009. Narag recalled in her Affidavit
Contract before Atty. Gumangan and in the presence of two witnesses, that in June 2009, she saw Carmelo practicing his signature on a blank
namely, Hilda Langgaman (Langgaman) and Narcisa Padua (Padua). yellow pad paper, while his niece, Ines Gammad (Gammad) watched.
Atty. Gumangan attached to his Comment/Answer the Joint After sometime, Gammad went over Carmelo's signatures and
Affidavit13 dated July 20, 2009 in which Langgaman and Padua affirmed said, "kitaem sabalin ti pirmam," which meant, "look[,] your signatures are
that they were personally present at Atty. Gumangan's office when now different."
Carmelo and Renato signed the Contract of Lease, and that they saw
with their own eyes Carmelo signing said Contract. Atty. Gumangan In a Resolution18 dated October 11, 2010, the Court referred the
likewise attached to his Comment/Answer the Affidavit 14 dated July 9, administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
2009 executed by Carmelo's daughter-in-law, Cathelyn Bawat Iringan investigation, report, and recommendation.
(Cathelyn), attesting to the existence and implementation of the Contract
of Lease: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline set the case for mandatory
That as trustee of the Emilia's Kitchenette, I was instrumental in the conference on June 8, 2011. Only Carmelo and his counsel appeared for
payment of rentals over said Kitchenette to plaintiffs [spouses Iringan] the scheduled mandatory conference. In his Order19 dated June 8, 2011,
thus: Commissioner (Com.) Hector B. Almeyda (Almeyda) granted Carmelo's
a) In June, 2007, I withdrew the sum of Twenty-five Thousand motion and instead of resetting the mandatory conference, directed the
(P25,000.00) Pesos from the Rural Bank of Rizal, Kalinga and used it for parties to submit their respective position papers within 40 days, without
the medical operation of Inez Gamad; the amount was treated as rentals prejudice to the submission of a comment or reply to the other party's
of Emilia's Kitchenette covering the months of November & December, position paper within 10 days from receipt; and provided that, thereafter,
2006, January, February and March of year 2007; the case would be deemed submitted for report and recommendation.
b) I paid Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos on August 23, 2007 for our
rental of April and May 2007; Com. Almeyda rendered his Report and Recommendation 20 on
c) I paid rental of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos to Carmen December 7, 2011 finding that:
Iringan, which was used for the eye treatment of Renato Iringan; The existence and execution of the lease contract between [Carmelo]
d) I issued a check in the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) and
Pesos, given to Engr. Federico Iringan, son of [spouses Iringan]; Sixty his brother Renato appears to be an established fact. Not only was the
Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos was used to cover rentals of the agreement between the brothers given recognition by a couple of courts
Kitchenette and Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos was personal to (MTC of Tabuk City and the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk City),
Federico[.] [Carmelo], other than the self-serving claim that he did not appear at the
signing, completely failed to deny that his signature on the contract of
Atty. Gumangan proffered the following explanation for the irregularities lease was not his or otherwise forged. The validity of the contract of
as regards the community tax certificates (CTCs) of Carmelo and Renato, lease, absent clear evidence of its non-execution in the face of
the parties to the Contract of Lease: document/affidavits that quite clearly showed the contrary, established
A. [Carmelo] and his brother Renato Iringan appeared before the herein the fact of execution.
[Atty. Gumangan] in the afternoon of December 30, 2005, and after they
x x x, together with their witnesses, affixed their signature on the Contract There is one other matter [though] that needs some discussion.
of Lease, the herein [Atty. Gumangan], directed them to produce their Sustaining the validity of the contract of lease notwithstanding, [Atty.
community tax certificates, but they failed to do so, but they instead Gumangan] must be held responsible for the execution of that document
promised to secure their community tax certificates the earliest possible that is incomplete due to the absence and/or questionable CTC's of the
opportunity; parties. Add to that the admitted failure of [Atty. Gumangan] to make his
notarial report, and even on the assumption that he filed his notarial
B. Considering that December 30, 2005 is a Friday, and the next working report, he failed to include in his notarial report the contract of lease as
day January 01, 2006, is a holiday, Renato Iringan secured his among those he notarized. The violation of the notarial law and the
community tax certificate on the 17th day of January 2006. x x x.15 liability of [Atty. Gumangan] in this regard is obvious.

Atty. Gumangan substantiated his foregoing averments by appending In the end, Com. Almeyda recommended:
Renato's Affidavit16 dated August 11, 2010 to his Comment/Answer, in WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint for
which the latter deposed and stated: disbarment on the grounds relied on be dismissed for insufficiency of
1. That on the 30th day of December 2005, I together with my merit to sustain the plea for disbarment and/or suspension. But [Atty.
brother Carmelo Iringan, went to the office of Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan] is advised to be a bit more circumspect in the performance of
Gumangan, for the purpose of executing a Contract of Lease, over his duties as a lawyer so that he is warned that a repetition of a similar
my two storey building, located at Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga; lapse will be dealt with more serious sanctions.
2. That after we came to the terms and conditions of the Contract Due to the incompleteness in the preparation of the contract of lease,
of Lease, Atty. Gumangan, prepared the same, and explained the [Atty. Gumangan's] commission as notary public is recommended to be
contents thereof to us in Ilokano dialect; revoked upon notice and he is further recommended to be disqualified to
xxxx act as notary public for the next two (2) years.21
5. That after we had affixed our signatures, Atty. Gumangan In its Resolution No. XX-2013-41522 dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board
required us to present our community tax certificates, but we have of Governors unanimously adopted and approved Com. Almeyda's
none that time; Report and Recommendation.
6. That Atty. Gumangan, directed us to secure a cedula, but The Court wholly agrees with the findings and recommendations of Com.
considering that it was then a Friday and the 30 th of December Almeyda and the IBP Board of Governors.
2005, we told him that we will just secure our community tax The Contract of Lease was executed by Renato and Carmelo on
certificates, on the following working day which is [in] January of December 30, 2005 and notarized by Atty. Gumangan on even date.
2006; During said time, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice23 still applied.
7. That I then entered the number of my community tax certificate
the date of its issuance and place of issuance. on the 17 th of The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice required the notary public to
January 2006; maintain a notarial register with the following information:
8. That considering that Carmelo Iringan is my very own brother, I RULE VI
no longer [asked] him to secure his community tax certificate for the Notarial Register
purpose of entering its number, date of issue and place of issue, in xxxx
our Contract of Lease as directed by Atty. Gumangan[;] Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – (a) For every notarial act, the
9. That I hereby state that I and my very own brother CARMELO notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the
IRINGAN, together with our witnesses are personally present before following:
Atty. Gumangan, when we [executed] our contract of lease[.] (1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
In addition, Atty. Gumangan belied Carmelo's claim that they do not know (3) the type of notarial act;
each other prior to Civil Case No. 518-09. According to Atty. Gumangan, (4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;
after Renato and Carmelo executed the Contract of Lease before him, he (5) the name and address of each principal;
frequented Emilia's Kitchenette, which was only 500 meters away from (6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if
the RTC, and Tabuk City, Kalinga is a small community where almost the signatory is not personally known to the notary;
everyone know each other. (7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or
affirming the person's identity;
Atty. Gumangan also argued that the Contract of Lease was not the (8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
principal subject of Civil Case No. 518-09. Civil Case No. 518-09 was for (9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the
Illegal Detainer and Ejectment with Damages filed by Renato against notary's regular place of work or business; and
Carmelo because of the latter's failure to vacate the premises. It was (10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance
Carmelo who alleged that the Contract of Lease between him and Renato or relevance. (Emphasis supplied.)
was spurious, but both the MTCC and the RTC found that the notarized Highlighting the importance of the requirement of competent evidence of
Contract was a public document which needed no further proof of its identity of the parties, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly
content and was entitled to much faith and confidence, absent clear
 3
prohibited the notary public, who did not personally know the parties, stressed the importance of the notary public's compliance with the
from notarizing an instrument or document without the same, thus: formalities for notarization of documents:
RULE IV There is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Powers and Limitations of Notaries Public Responsibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of
xxxx the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Report and for failing to require the
Sec. 2. Prohibitions. – x x x parties to the deed to exhibit their respective community tax certificates.
xxxx Doubts were cast as to the existence and due execution of the subject
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
signatory to the instrument or document – process and diminishing public confidence in notarial documents since
xxxx the subject deed was introduced as an annex to the Affidavit of Title/Right
2. Is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified of Possession of Third Party Claimant relative to NLRC Case No. RAB-
by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined CAR-12-0672-00.
by these Rules. (Emphases supplied.) A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most
common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defined "competent evidence of or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public
identity" as follows: must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a
RULE II document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public,
Definitions after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its
xxxx genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization. should not be treated
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase "competent as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. As early as Panganiban v.
evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: Borromeo, we held that notaries public must inform themselves of the
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official facts which they intend to certify and to take no part in illegal
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or transactions. They must guard against any illegal or immoral
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the arrangements.
instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an
notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private
notary public documentary identification. document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence
without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.
Atty. Gumangan herein violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
notarizing the Contract of Lease on December 30, 2005 without its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in
competent evidence of identity of Renato and Carmelo and, thus, complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their
committing an expressly prohibited act under the Rules. duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form
of conveyance would be undermined.
Atty. Gumangan did not allege that he personally knew Renato and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer
Carmelo when they appeared before him on December 30, 2005 for the to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
notarization of the Contract of Lease. There was no showing that Renato for the law and legal processes. Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004
and Carmelo presented current identification documents issued by an Rules on Notarial Practice require a duly commissioned notary public to
official agency bearing their photographs and signatures before Atty. make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from
Gumangan notarized their Contract of Lease. Langgaman and Padua committing any dereliction or act which constitutes good cause for the
witnessed Renato and Carmelo signing the Contract of Lease in person revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.
at Atty. Gumangan's office, but they did not attest under oath or Unfortunately, respondent failed in both respects. (Citations omitted.)
affirmation that they personally knew Renato and Carmelo, and neither A lawyer, who is also commissioned as a notary public, is mandated to
did they present their own documentary identification. discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such
duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
According to Renato, Atty. Gumangan asked them to present their CTCs, Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath
but neither Renato nor Carmelo had CTCs at that moment. Renato only in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. A notary public cannot simply
secured a CTC on January 17, 2006, which he belatedly presented to disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.27
Atty. Gumangan for recording. Clearly, herein, Atty. Gumangan – in notarizing the Contract of Lease
without competent evidence of the identity of Renato and Carmelo, and in
CTCs no longer qualifies as competent evidence of the parties' identity as failing to submit to the RTC Clerk of Court his Notarial Report and a
defined under Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. duplicate original of the Contract of Lease – had been grossly remiss in
In Bay/on v. Almo,24 considering the ease with which a CTC could be his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer, consequently, undermining
obtained these days and recognizing the established unreliability of a the faith and confidence of the public in the notarial act and/or notarized
CTC in proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his document documents.
notarized, the Court did not include the CTC in the list of competent Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Court holds Atty. Gumangan
evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the administratively liable and imposes upon him the penalty of suspension of
identity of persons appearing before them to have their documents his notarial commission for two years.
notarized.25 Worse, neither Renato nor Carmelo had CTCs with them on As a last note, the Court points out that its judgment in the present case
December 30, 2005, yet, Atty. Gumangan still proceeded with notarizing does not touch upon the execution and existence of the Contract of
the Contract of Lease, allowing Renato to belatedly present his CTC Lease between Renato and Carmelo, facts which the MTCC found
weeks later, while Carmelo did not present any CTC at all. sufficiently established in its Decision dated September 24, 2009 in Civil
Case No. 518-09, and affirmed on appeal by the RTC in its Decision
Moreover, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also prescribed: dated May 25, 2010. Such factual findings of the MTCC and RTC were
RULE VI not based solely on the irregularly-notarized Contract of Lease between
Notarial Register Renato and Carmelo, but also on the consistent declarations of Renato,
xxxx Atty. Gumangan, and the two impartial witnesses, Langgaman and
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register.  – x x x Padua, that Renato and Carmelo personally appeared and signed said
xxxx Contract of Lease at the office and in the presence of Atty. Gumangan on
(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public December 30, 2005. Carmelo's self-serving denial, averments of
shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said irregularities in the notarization of the Contract of Lease, and presentation
records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each of Atty. Andomang's Affidavit dated September 3, 2009 were deemed
entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar insufficient by the MTCC and the RTC to refute such factual findings.
year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of It is worthy to mention that any defect in the notarization of the Contract
Court. of Lease did not affect its validity and it continued to be binding between
xxxx the parties to the same, namely, Renato and Carmelo. The irregularity in
(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original the notarization was not fatal to the validity of the Contract of Lease since
copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public the absence of such formality would not necessarily invalidate the lease,
shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be but would merely render the written contract a private instrument rather
forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of than a public one.28 In addition, parties who appear before a notary public
such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall to have their documents notarized should not be expected to follow up on
forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein the submission of the notarial reports. They should not be made to suffer
required. (Emphases supplied.) the consequences of the negligence of the notary public in following the
procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law. 29
Per Atty. Andomang's Affidavit dated September 3, 2009, Atty. Hence, the ruling of the Court in the present administrative case,
Gumangan did not submit to the RTC Clerk of Court his Notarial Report essentially addressing the defects in the notarization of the Contract of
and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease dated December 30, Lease dated December 30, 2005 between Renato and Carmelo and Atty.
2005 between Renata and Carmelo. Atty. Gumangan did not dispute Gumangan's failings as a notary public, should not affect the judgment
Atty. Andomang's Affidavit nor provide any explanation for his failure to rendered against Carmelo in Civil Case No. 518-09, the unlawful detainer
comply with such requirements. case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan is
In Agagon v. Bustamante,26 which involved closely similar administrative found GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial
infractions by therein respondent, Atty. Artemio F. Bustamante, the Court Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His incumbent
 4
commission as notary public, if any, is REVOKED, and he
is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years, effective immediately. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his
receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his
suspension shall take effect. He is finally WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant,
to be appended to respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan's personal
record as member of the Bar. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.