FACTS:

Bernaldo E. Valdez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Winston B. Hipe with the Office of the Bar Confidant for allegedly violating the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Valdez claimed that he received a copy of an affidavit executed by respondent in support of a counter-affidavit filed by Atty. Calberito M. Caballero. In that affidavit, respondent stated that he notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Verification/Certification) executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe. However, Valdez pointed out that according to a certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the document referred to by respondent was actually an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death, not the Verification/Certification. Valdez filed the administrative case against respondent for violation of the Notarial Rules. Respondent admitted executing the affidavit and notarizing the Verification/Certification but claimed that his failure to include it in his notarial report was due to mere inadvertence and his heavy workload as a legal consultant. This was the first time in his more than eighteen years as a notary public that he has been administratively charged. Respondent apologized for the mistake and promised to be more cautious in the performance of his duties as a notary public.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe violated the lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

2. Whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable in this case.

RULING:

1. The Court finds respondent Atty. Winston B. Hipe administratively liable in this case. Respondent admitted to notarizing a Verification/Certification without including it in his notarial report, thereby violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While respondent claimed that his failure to report was due to mere inadvertence and a heavy workload, it does not excuse his non-compliance with the rules. The Court emphasized that a notary public acts as an officer of the law and must discharge his duties with utmost care and integrity. The failure to include the notarized document in the notarial report undermines the purpose of maintaining a record of notarial acts and raises doubts on the authenticity and legitimacy of the document. Respondent's mistake, even if it is the first time he has been administratively charged, cannot excuse his violation of the rules.

PRINCIPLES:

• A notary public acts as an officer of the law and must discharge his duties with utmost care and integrity. Failure to comply with the rules on notarial practice may result in administrative liability.

• The failure to include a notarized document in the notarial report undermines the purpose of maintaining a record of notarial acts and raises doubts on the authenticity and legitimacy of the document.