FACTS:

Complainant John Paul Kiener filed identical complaints against Atty. Ricardo R. Amores before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) seeking disciplinary sanctions against the respondent. The OCA referred the complaint to the OBC.

The complaint arose from a criminal case where John Paul was accused of Estafa. Atty. Amores served as the private prosecutor on behalf of the complainant. At the same time, he was a commissioned notary public. Irene Medalla, the Corporate Secretary of the complainant corporation, executed a Secretary's Certificate authorizing the Chairman to file a criminal case against John Paul and Atty. Amores notarized the said certificate. However, John Paul alleged that the Secretary's Certificate was defective and improperly notarized as Atty. Amores failed to indicate the serial number of his notarial commission and Irene's signature appeared to be printed or scanned, suggesting that she was not physically present during the notarization. John Paul claimed violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Amores filed a motion for extension of time to file a comment, arguing that Irene did sign the Secretary's Certificate in his presence and that the use of a printed or scanned signature does not violate the Rules on Notarial Practice. He also contended that the allegations should be raised in the criminal case as defense and that the administrative case was a personal attack.

The complaint was consolidated with another administrative case filed against Atty. Amores. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Amores in the other case. It was noted that the other case has been resolved and Atty. Amores was found guilty of misconduct and negligence in that case.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of Atty. Amores's appointment as a Notary Public and disqualification from reappointment for two years, finding that Atty. Amores failed to verify Irene's signature and there was no evidence of Irene's physical presence during the notarization. However, the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) reversed the recommendation and dismissed the administrative case, stating that Irene was personally present during the notarization based on the presumption of regularity. John Paul's motion for reconsideration was denied by the BOG.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Atty. Amores violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. Whether Atty. Amores failed to ascertain the genuineness of Irene's signature and her physical presence during the notarization.

RULING:

1. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the administrative case against Atty. Amores. It ruled that Irene personally signed the Secretary's Certificate and was present during its notarization. Therefore, the case against Atty. Amores was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Notaries public must comply with the Rules on Notarial Practice, including indicating the serial number of their notarial commission and ensuring the physical presence of the signatory during the notarization.

• Lawyers should adhere to the Canons of Professional Responsibility, including the duty to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.

• The presumption of regularity applies to the performance of duties by notaries public, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

• Allegations made in an administrative case must be supported by personal knowledge or corroborating evidence to be considered.