View full case

MARIANO AGADAN v. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN

FACTS:

Complainants filed a complaint against Atty. Kilaan, alleging that he falsified documents and engaged in dishonesty and deceit. They accused Atty. Kilaan of intercalating entries in an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) and submitting false and insufficient documentary requirements. They also claimed that Atty. Kilaan prepared a decision based on a resolution of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) that dismissed their opposition and granted the application of Joseph Batingwed, whose name was substituted in the application.

In his answer, Atty. Kilaan denied violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He denied involvement in the preparation of the decision and argued that it was the Regional Director of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC)-CAR who approves the application and drafts the decision. Atty. Kilaan claimed that Batingwed had abandoned his application and disclaimed any knowledge of the application being forwarded to the LTFRB Central Office for approval. He also denied intercalating entries in the application and stated that it was Gary Adasing who paid the filing fee for Batingwed's application. Atty. Kilaan alleged that the complaint was filed in retaliation for the dismissal of their opposition to other applications for CPCs that he filed for his clients.

After a mandatory conference, the parties submitted their position papers. Complainants presented evidence that Atty. Kilaan's notarial entry regarding the verification of Batingwed's application was erroneously recorded as a deed of sale in his notarial register. They also presented an affidavit from Adasing contradicting Atty. Kilaan's claim that he was abroad. The Investigating Commissioner found that complainants failed to prove the intercalation of entries in the application for CPC. However, Atty. Kilaan was held liable for violating the Notarial Law due to the erroneous recording of the verification as a deed of sale in his notarial register. The Investigating Commissioner also noted that Atty. Kilaan lied under oath about Adasing being abroad. The recommended penalties were the revocation of Atty. Kilaan's notarial commission, a prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and a two-month suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Kilaan should be held liable for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register.

  2. Whether Atty. Kilaan should be held liable for violating the Notarial Law, Lawyer's Oath, and Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether the respondent's failure to make proper entries in his Notarial Register and his failure to enter documents that he notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public.

  4. Whether the respondent should be held accountable for the misdeeds despite blaming his secretary.

  5. Whether the respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Lawyer's Oath, and Code of Professional Responsibility warrant the imposition of sanctions.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Kilaan should be held liable for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register. He cannot delegate the recording of his notarial acts to his secretary as he is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Notarial Law.

  2. Atty. Kilaan should be held liable for violating the Notarial Law, Lawyer's Oath, and Code of Professional Responsibility. Notarization is a substantive public act that requires utmost care and compliance with the law. Attorneys who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public must be prevented from inflicting harm on the public, courts, and administrative offices.

  3. Yes, the respondent's failure to make proper entries in his Notarial Register and his failure to enter documents that he notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public.

  4. Yes, the respondent cannot escape liability by blaming his secretary. The lawyer himself should be held accountable for these misdeeds.

  5. Yes, the respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Lawyer's Oath, and Code of Professional Responsibility warrant the imposition of sanctions.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notaries public are personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in their Notarial Register.

  • Notarization is an act invested with substantive public interest and those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting harm on the public.

  • Notarization converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.

  • Attorneys must observe utmost care and comply with the basic requirements of their duties as notaries public.

  • A notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents as it converts a document from private to public, allowing it to be presented as evidence without need for proof of genuineness and due execution.

  • Notarization should not be treated as an empty or meaningless act, as a notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness.

  • Lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

  • The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a notary public to make proper entries in the Notarial Register and refrain from any act that may serve as cause for the revocation of their commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions.

  • Failure to make proper entries in the Notarial Register, failure to require the presence of a principal during notarial acts, and failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyer's commission as a notary public.

  • Lawyers must not commit falsehood, mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

  • Lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Sanctions, including revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law, may be imposed for violations of professional ethical standards.