VOL.

 ___, DECEMBER 7, 2020 1
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.
Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan

A.C. No. 12877. December 7, 2020.*

“IN RE: OMB-C-C-13-0104 ATTY. SOCRATES G. MARANAN v.

FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO,” complainant, vs. ATTY. SOCRATES
G. MARANAN, respondent.

Notary Public; Diligence Required of a Notary Public; A notary public

should observe utmost care in performing his duties to preserve public confi-
dence in the integrity of notarized documents.—The act of notarization is not
an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public interest. A notary
public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of
which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In
the performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal con-
verts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may
be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due
execution. A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face. Thus, a notary public should observe utmost care in performing his duties
to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

Same; Notarial Seal; Section 2, Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules
states that every notary public shall have his own notarial seal, which shall
have the name of the city or province and the word “Philippines,” and his own
name on the margin and the roll of attorney’s number on its face. The said seal
shall only be possessed by the notary public.—A notarial seal is a mark, image
or impression on a document which would indicate that the notary public has
officially signed it. Section 2, Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules states that
every notary public shall have his own notarial seal, which shall have the name
of the city or province and the word “Philippines,” and his own name on the
margin and the roll of attorney’s number on its face. The said seal shall only be
possessed by the notary public, to wit: Section 2. Official Seal.—(a) Every
person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be pro-
cured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any
other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter,
and shall have the name of the city or province and the word “Philippines”
and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney’s number on the
face thereof, with the words “notary public” across the center. A mark, image
or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on
which the writing appears. x x x x

*
SECOND DIVISION.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.

Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
Same; Same; Duty to Safeguard Notarial Seal; 2004 Notarial Rules; The
2004 Notarial Rules is explicit on the duties and obligations of the notary pub-
lic, which include the duty to secure and safeguard his notarial seal so that no
unauthorized persons can have access thereto.—The 2004 Notarial Rules is ex-
plicit on the duties and obligations of the notary public, which include the duty
to secure and safeguard his notarial seal so that no unauthorized persons can
have access thereto, viz.: Section 2. Official Seal.— x x x x x x x (c) When not
in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible
only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.
x x x x x x x In this case, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized
the consultancy contracts and claimed that his signatures therein as notary pub-
lic were forged. Although the IBP observed that Atty. Maranan’s signatures in
the subject contracts were strikingly dissimilar to his specimen signatures on
file before the Notarial Section of the RTC, and while it may likewise be true
that said contracts were not included in the notarial reports he submitted
thereto, he cannot claim full deniability and be exculpated from administrative
liability because the contracts bore his notarial seal. Instead of offering any
plausible explanation as to how the Consultancy contracts came to be stamped
with his notarial seal, Atty. Maranan merely insisted that he never notarized nor
authored said contracts, that his signatures therein were forgeries, and that said
contracts were not included in his notarial reports. No justifiable explanation
was given to prove that he had performed his mandatory duties as a notary pub-
lic as set forth under the 2004 Notarial Rules, which include the duty to safe-
guard his notarial seal to prevent possible tampering or misuse thereof. Clearly,
Atty. Maranan had been remiss in his obligation as a notary public. Had he
been more vigilant in the performance of his notarial duties, his notarial seal
would not have been affixed in the subject contracts. Indubitably, this failure on
the part of Atty. Maranan constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial
Rules, for which he must be held administratively liable.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation of the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and/or Code of Professional Re-
sponsibility.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The present administrative case stemmed from the 1st Indorsement1

dated March 11, 2014 filed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Of-

1
Rollo, p. 4.
 VOL. ___, DECEMBER 7, 2020 3
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.
Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
ficer II Anna Francesca M. Limbo of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman), referring its Resolution2 in OMB-C-C-13-01043 to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in order to determine whether
respondent Atty. Socrates G. Maranan (Atty. Maranan) committed a vi-
olation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 4 (2004 Notarial Rules)
and/or Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to his notariza-
tion of the consultancy contracts subject of the said case.

The Facts

Records bear out that Atty. Maranan filed a criminal complaint be-
fore the Ombudsman against then Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko
Moreno” Domagoso (Domagoso) of the City of Manila, charging him
with Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 for having signed, in behalf of the Manila City
Government, consultancy contracts with persons who were either de-
ceased or out of the country for extended periods of time.5 In defense,
Domagoso claimed, among others, that he signed the consultancy con-
tracts upon the assurance of his former Secretary, Abraham Cabochan,
that everything was in order, and pointed out that it was Atty. Maranan
who actually notarized the subject contracts. 6 After due proceedings,
the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Domagoso 7 and referred
the matter to the IBP for determination of Atty. Maranan’s administra-
tive liability for having notarized the consultancy contracts.8
For his part, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized the
consultancy contracts, as shown by the wide disparity between his al-

2
Id., at pp. 5-10. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
3
For Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019.
4
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (August 1, 2004).
5 ?
Records show that the consultancy agreements were executed be-
tween Domagoso and Patricia D.L. Brucelango and Fernando S. Baltazar, who
were both allegedly deceased, and Thelma G. Emutan and Dennis D.V. Cain-
gat, who were both abroad at the time the agreements were executed. (See
Rollo, pp. 5-6, 42-60, 136).
6?
Id., at pp. 6,137.
7?
Id., at pp. 6-8, 137-138.
8?
Id., at p. 12.
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.

Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
leged signatures in the said contracts and his signatures appearing in the
facsimile of signatures submitted to the Notarial Section of the Office
of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC). More-
over, he averred that the consultancy contracts do not appear in any of
his monthly notarial reports that he regularly submitted to the RTC.9

The IBP’s Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation10 dated July 15, 2015, the Investi-

gating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the administra-
tive case against Atty. Maranan for lack of merit, finding that there was
lack of clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the allegations
against him.11
In a Resolution12 dated August 26, 2016, however, the IBP Board of
Governors resolved to reverse the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. In an Extended Resolution 13 dated March 1, 2017, the
IBP Board of Governors found that there was substantial evidence to
prove that Atty. Maranan violated the 2004 Notarial Rules, considering
that it was his responsibility to impose safeguards against the unautho-
rized notarization of documents in his register. Indeed, even if the sig-
natures above his name as notary public in the consultancy contracts do
not appear to be his, Atty. Maranan cannot sever himself from the sup-
posed notarized documents as the same bore his notarial seal. Accord-
ingly, the IBP Board of Governors recommended that: (a) Atty.
Maranan be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months; (b) he be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of two (2) years; and (c) his current notarial com-
mission be immediately revoked.14

9?
Id., at pp. 21-31.
10
Id., at pp. 108-110. Signed by Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-
Biñas.
11
Id., at pp. 109-110.
12
Id., at pp. 106-107. Signed by Secretary Avelino V. Sales, Jr.
13
Id., at pp. 136-145. Signed by Assistant Director Juan Orendain P.
Buted.
14
Id., at pp. 143-144.
 VOL. ___, DECEMBER 7, 2020 5
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.
Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
Aggrieved, Atty. Maranan moved for reconsideration,15 which was
denied in a Resolution16 dated June 18, 2019.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court’s consideration is whether or not

grounds exist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable.

The Court’s Ruling

After a judicious review of the records, the Court concurs with the
findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors that
Atty. Maranan should be held administratively liable in this case.
The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with
substantive public interest.17 A notary public is empowered to perform
a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledg-
ment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance
of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the signifi-
cance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal con-
verts a document from a private to a public instrument, after
which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its
genuineness and due execution.18 A notarized document is entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, a notary public should observe
utmost care in performing his duties to preserve public confidence in
the integrity of notarized documents.19
A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a document which
would indicate that the notary public has officially signed it. 20 Section
2, Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules states that every notary public
shall have his own notarial seal, which shall have the name of the city
15
See motion for reconsideration dated September 8, 2017; id., at pp.
121-126.
16
Id., at p. 130.
17
See Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11, 2019, 927
SCRA 637.
18
Castro v. Bigay, Jr., 813 Phil. 882, 892; 831 SCRA 274, 284 (2017);
citation omitted.
19
See Bartolome v. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1, 5; 772 SCRA 213, 218 (2015).
20
Chua v. Soriano, 549 Phil. 578, 591; 521 SCRA 68, 80 (2007).
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.

Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
or province and the word “Philippines,” and his own name on the mar-
gin and the roll of attorney’s number on its face. The said seal shall
only be possessed by the notary public, to wit:

Section 2. Official Seal.—(a) Every person commis-

sioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be pro-
cured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or
owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in
shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the
city or province and the word “Philippines” and his own name
on the margin and the roll of attorney’s number on the face
thereof, with the words “notary public” across the center. A mark,
image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the pa-
per or parchment on which the writing appears.
x x x x (Emphases supplied)

Further, the 2004 Notarial Rules is explicit on the duties and obliga-
tions of the notary public, 21 which include the duty to secure and safe-
guard his notarial seal so that no unauthorized persons can have access
thereto, viz.:

Section 2. Official Seal.— x x x
xxxx
(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe
and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or
the person duly authorized by him.
x x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied)

In this case, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized the

consultancy contracts and claimed that his signatures therein as notary
public were forged. Although the IBP observed that Atty. Maranan’s
signatures22 in the subject contracts were strikingly dissimilar to his
specimen signatures23 on file before the Notarial Section of the RTC,
and while it may likewise be true that said contracts were not included
in the notarial reports he submitted thereto, he cannot claim full denia-

21
Santiago v. Rafanan, 483 Phil. 94, 103; 440 SCRA 91, 98 (2004).
22
Rollo, pp. 42-60.
23
Id., at p. 64.
 VOL. ___, DECEMBER 7, 2020 7
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.
Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
bility and be exculpated from administrative liability because the con-
tracts bore his notarial seal.
Instead of offering any plausible explanation as to how the Consul-
tancy contracts came to be stamped with his notarial seal, Atty.
Maranan merely insisted that he never notarized nor authored said con-
tracts, that his signatures therein were forgeries, and that said contracts
were not included in his notarial reports.24 No justifiable explanation
was given to prove that he had performed his mandatory duties as a no-
tary public as set forth under the 2004 Notarial Rules, which include
the duty to safeguard his notarial seal to prevent possible tampering or
misuse thereof. Clearly, Atty. Maranan had been remiss in his obliga-
tion as a notary public. Had he been more vigilant in the performance
of his notarial duties, his notarial seal would not have been affixed in
the subject contracts. Indubitably, this failure on the part of Atty.
Maranan constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial Rules, 25 for
which he must be held administratively liable.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon
Atty. Maranan involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based
on the facts of the case. 26 In Ang v. Atty. Belaro, Jr.,27 the Court im-
posed the following penalties upon the respondent lawyer who commit-
ted a similar violation of the notarial law, i.e., failure to safeguard his
notarial seal: (a) suspension from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months; (b) disqualification from reappointment as a notary public
for a period of two (2) years; and (c) revocation of his notarial commis-
sion, if any. Finding the said penalties to have been imposed by the
IBP-Board of Governors and in light of the similarity in the infraction
committed in this case, the Court therefore affirms the same.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Socrates G. Maranan (Atty.
Maranan) is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Deci-
sion. Moreover, his notarial commission, if any, is hereby IMMEDI-

24
Id., at pp. 21-22, 29-31.
25
See Ang v. Belaro, Jr., supra note 17.
26
Endaya v. Oca, 457 Phil. 314, 329; 410 SCRA 244, 255-256 (2003).
27
Supra note 17.
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.

Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan
ATELY REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being com-
missioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
Atty. Maranan is DIRECTED to immediately file a manifestation to
the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and
quasi-judicial bodies where he had entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confi-
dant to be entered in Atty. Maranan’s personal records as a member of
the Philippine Bar, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution
to all its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circula-
tion to all courts.
SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, Lazaro-Javier, Lopez and Rosario,** JJ., concur.

Respondent Atty. Socrates G. Maranan suspended from practice of

law for six (6) months for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Prac-
tice. His notarial commission immediately revoked and is disqualified
from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.

Notes.—The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the neces-

sity of the parties to personally appear before the notary public. (Zial-
cita vs. Latras, 895 SCRA 495 [2019])
By affixing their notarial seal on the instrument, respondents Sentil-
las and Mata, in effect, proclaimed to the world that: (1) all the parties
therein personally appeared before them; (2) they are all personally
known to them; (3) they were the same persons who executed the in-
struments; (4) they inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the
instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before them that
they voluntarily and freely executed the same when in truth and in fact,
respondents Sentillas and Mata notarized the documents without prop-
erly ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before them
and the genuineness of their signatures. (Lopez vs. Mata, 945 SCRA
420 [2020])

——o0o——
**
Designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated
November 5, 2020.
 VOL. ___, DECEMBER 7, 2020 9
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v.
Francisco Domagoso vs. Maranan