FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11165. February 6, 2017.]

ORLANDO S. CASTELO, ELENA C. CAMA, OSWALDO CASTELO,

JOCELYN LLANILLO, AND BENJAMIN CASTELO , complainants, vs.
ATTY. RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING , respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA , J : p

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. 1
The salient facts, as borne by the records, are:
Sometime in late 2013, Complainants Orlando S. Castelo, Elena C. Cama,
Oswaldo Castelo, Jocelyn Llanillo, and Benjamin Castelo (Castelo heirs) received
summons from the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila (MeTC) for an ejectment
case 2 led against them by Leonida Delen and Spouses Nestor Delen and Julibel Delen
(the Delens), who alleged that they were the owners of the house and lot located at
2511 A. Sulu Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila (subject property). The subject property was then
the residence of the Castelo heirs, 3 and was covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title
(TCT) No. 291223 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila (RD) in the name of the
Delens. 4
Upon verifying the authenticity of TCT No. 291223 with the RD, the Castelo heirs
discovered that the previous title covering the subject property, TCT No. 240995, which
was in the name of the Castelo heirs' parents, Spouses Benjamin Castelo and Perzidia 5
S. Castelo (Spouses Castelo), had been cancelled 6 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated March 24, 2010 (Deed). 7 The Deed was purportedly executed by the Spouses
Castelo and the Delens, and was notarized by Respondent Atty. Ronald Segundino C.
Ching (Atty. Ching), despite the fact that Perzidia S. Castelo died on May 4, 2009, 8 as
shown in her Death Certi cate. 9 The Castelo heirs also learned that the
acknowledgment page of the Deed showed that only community tax certi cates had
been presented to Atty. Ching, and not valid government-issued identi cation cards as
required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 1 0
With this discovery, the Castelo heirs led on June 2, 2014 with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) this administrative case against Atty. Ching based on the
latter's gross negligence in notarizing the Deed. 1 1
Atty. Ching, for his part, denied having notarized the Deed. He countered that he
did not know the Spouses Castelo and the Delens, and that the Deed presented by the
Castelo heirs had been falsi ed. Atty. Ching continued that his purported signature in
the Deed was forged. 1 2 To prove the alleged forgery, Atty. Ching presented specimens
of his signatures that he used in signing pleadings and notarizing documents. 1 3
At the scheduled mandatory conference on September 1, 2014, 1 4 the Castelo
heirs and Atty. Ching were present. 1 5 The Castelo heirs moved for the issuance of an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testi candum 1 6 to
Atty. Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, the Clerk of Court and Ex-O cio Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, or any of her duly authorized records o cers, to
appear at the next scheduled mandatory conference with Books No. 16 and 17, Series
of 2010 of the Notarial Register (Atty. Ching's notarial books), which allegedly
contained the original copy of the Deed. The IBP issued the subpoena, 1 7 and the
mandatory conference was reset to November 13, 2014. 1 8
In the November 13, 2014 resetting of the mandatory conference which was the
last, 1 9 Atty. Ching's notarial books were presented. 2 0 However, Atty. Ching failed to
attend the said conference and refute the authenticity of the Deed. Upon veri cation,
the IBP concluded that the copy of the Deed presented by the Castelo heirs in their
Complaint was indeed a faithful machine copy of the original contained in Atty. Ching's
notarial books. 2 1 Thereafter, the Castelo heirs submitted their position paper. 2 2 Atty.
Ching, however, failed to submit his. HTcADC

After due proceedings, Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles (Commissioner Robles)

rendered a Report and Recommendation 2 3 on December 3, 2014, nding that Atty.
Ching was grossly negligent in notarizing the Deed. 2 4 The dispositive portion reads:
UPON THE FOREGOING, considering the seriousness of the
consequences of respondent's gross negligence, it is recommended that
respondent's notarial commission be cancelled immediately, and that he be
disqualified from ever being commissioned again as notary public. 2 5
In its Resolution 2 6 dated February 21, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the said Report and Recommendation,
thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modi cation, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", for gross negligence in Respondent's notarial service.
Hence, Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching's notarial commission if presently
commissioned is immediately REVOKED. Further, he is PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public and
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. 2 7
After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the
Court has no compelling reason to diverge from the factual ndings of Commissioner
Robles and the recommended penalty of the IBP Board of Governors.
Gross negligence on the part of a notary public encompasses the failure to
observe any of the requirements of a notarial act under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice which would result in putting the rights of a person to his liberty or property in
jeopardy. This includes, among others, failing to require the presence of the signatories
to a notarial instrument and ascertaining their identities through competent evidence
thereof, 2 8 and allowing, knowingly or unknowingly, people, other than the notary public
himself, to sign notarial documents, a x the notarial seal therein, and make entries in
the notarial register. 2 9
In Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo, 3 0 the Court ruled that Atty. Hidalgo was grossly
negligent not only in the supposed notarization of a deed of sale of a parcel of land
purchased by the Spouses Santuyo, but also in allowing his o ce secretaries to make
the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept
by him alone. This resulted in an ownership dispute between the Spouses Santuyo and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 a certain Danilo German which led to the ling of a case of estafa through falsi cation
of a public document against the Spouses Santuyo, thus: CAIHTE

After going over the evidence submitted by the parties, complainants did
not categorically state that they appeared before respondent to have the deed of
sale notarized. Their appearance before him could have bolstered this allegation
that respondent signed the document and that it was not a forgery as he
claimed. The records show that complainants themselves were not sure if
respondent, indeed, signed the document; what they were sure of was the fact
that his signature appeared thereon. They had no personal knowledge as well
as to who actually affixed the signature of respondent on the deed.
Furthermore, complainants did not refute respondent's contention that he
only met complainant Benjamin Santuyo six years after the alleged notarization
of the deed of sale. Respondent's assertion was corroborated by one Mrs. Lyn
Santy in an a davit executed on November 17, 2001 wherein she stated that
complainant Editha Santuyo had to invite respondent to her house on November
5, 1997 to meet her husband since the two had to be introduced to each other.
The meeting between complainant Benjamin Santuyo and respondent was
arranged after the latter insisted that Mr. Santuyo personally acknowledge a
deed of sale concerning another property that the spouses bought.
In nding respondent negligent in performing his notarial functions, the
IBP reasoned out:

xxx xxx xxx

Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary
public is sensitive respondent should have been more discreet and
cautious in the execution of his duties as such and should not
have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries; otherwise he
should not have been commissioned as notary public.
For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other
mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary there
can be a possibility that even the respondent's signature which is
the only one left for him to do can be done by the secretary or
anybody for that matter as had been the case herein. aScITE

As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the

supposed notarization but foremost in having allowed the o ce
secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry
which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone; and
should not have relied on somebody else. 3 1
In this case, Commissioner Robles observed that while Atty. Ching denied having
notarized the Deed 3 2 by showing the discrepancy between his purported signature
therein 3 3 and the specimen signatures 3 4 he submitted in his Answer, he miserably
failed to explain how the Deed ended up in his notarial books. Commissioner Robles
concluded that while it would not be fair to conclude that Atty. Ching actually signed the
Deed, he was nonetheless grossly negligent for failing to give a satisfactory reason why
a supposedly forged Deed was duly recorded in his notarial books. 3 5
The Court completely agrees with Commissioner Robles' observation. While
there may be reasons to give Atty. Ching the bene t of the doubt as to who signed the
Deed, the Court does not and cannot lose sight of the fact that Atty. Ching still failed in
ensuring that only documents which he had personally signed and sealed with his
notarial seal, after satisfying himself with the completeness of the same and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 identities of the parties who a xed their signatures therein, would be included in his
notarial register. This also means that Atty. Ching failed to properly store and secure
his notarial equipment in order to prevent other people from notarizing documents by
forging his signature and a xing his notarial seal, and recording such documents in his
notarial books, without his knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence.
Such gross negligence on the part of Atty. Ching in letting another person
notarize the Deed had also unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy of losing their
property. To make matters worse, the real property subject of the Deed was the
residence, nay, the family home of the Castelo heirs, a property that their parents had
worked hard for in order to provide them and their children a decent shelter and the
primary place where they could bond together as a family — a property which had
already acquired sentimental value on the part of the Castelo heirs, which no amount of
money could ever match. One can just imagine the pain and anguish of losing a home to
unscrupulous people who were able to transfer title to such property and le a case in
court in order to eject them — all because of the negligence of a notary public in
keeping his notarial books and instruments from falling into the wrong hands.
This is not to say, however, that the Court has ruled on whether or not the Deed in
this case was indeed forged. Such issue is civil, and perhaps criminal, in nature which
should be passed upon in a proper case, and not in an administrative or disciplinary
proceeding such as this case. 3 6
As for the penalty to be imposed, and taking into account the possible undue
deprivation of property on the part of the Castelo heirs as a result of Atty. Ching's gross
negligence, the Court agrees with, and hereby adopts, the recommended penalty of the
IBP. DETACa

As a final note, this case should serve as a reminder for notaries public, as well as
for lawyers who are applying for a commission, that the duty to public service and to
the administration of public justice is the primary consideration in the practice of law.
3 7 This duty to public service is made more important when a lawyer is commissioned
as a notary public. Like the duty to defend a client's cause within the bounds of law, a
notary public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and con dence in his
o c e 3 8 by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the integrity of every
document that comes under his notarial seal, and seeing to it that only documents that
he personally inspected and whose signatories he personally identi ed are recorded in
his notarial books. In addition, notaries public should properly secure the equipment
they use in performing notarial acts, in order for them not to fall into the wrong hands,
and be used in acts that would undermine the public's trust and con dence in the o ce
of the notary public.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching is found GUILTY of gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public. His existing notarial
commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is also PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public. Moreover, he is hereby
SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS. He is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
Atty. Ching is also DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of
this Decision to determine the reckoning point of the effectivity of his suspension.
Let a copy of this Decision be made part of Atty. Ching's records in the O ce of
the Bar Con dant, and copies be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Bartolome v. Basilio, A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015, 772 SCRA 213, 223-224.
2. The Castelo heirs did not indicate the case number, nor the status of the case.

3. Rollo, p. 2.
4. Id. at 3, 6-9. It was stated in the TCT that it was issued in the name of "1) LEONIDA DELEN,
widow; and SPOUSES NESTOR DELEN and JULIBEL DELEN".

5. Also spelled as "Persidia" in some parts of the records.

6. Id. at 10-13.

7. Id. at 3, 14-16.
8. Id. at 3.

9. Id. at 17-18.
10. See id. at 3.
11. Id. at 2-5.

12. See Answer, id. at 22-26.

13. Id. at 27-30, 34, 40-41, 51, 67.

14. Id. at 72.

15. Id. at 78.

16. Id. at 80-81.

17. Id. at 85 and 87.
18. Id. at 86.

19. See id. at 88.

20. See Order dated November 13, 2014, id. at 90-91.

21. Id. at 90.

22. Id. at 92-99.

23. Id. at 118-119.

24. Id. at 118.
25. Id. at 119.

26. Id. at 116-117.

27. Id. at 116; emphasis in the original.

28. See Sistual, et al. v. Atty. Ogena, A.C. No. 9807, February 2, 2016; Dela Cruz-Sillano v.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Pangan, 592 Phil. 219 (2008) and Dela Cruz v. Zabala, 485 Phil. 83 (2004).
29. See Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo, 489 Phil. 257, 261-262 (2005).
30. Id.
31. Id. at 260-262; footnotes omitted.

32. Rollo, p. 22.

33. Id. at 16.

34. Id. at 27-30, 34, 40-41, 51, 67.

35. Id. at 119.
36. See Dagala v. Quesada, Jr., 722 Phil. 447, 459 (2013).
37. Sps. Brunet v. Guaren, 728 Phil. 546, 548 (2014); Bengco v. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 16 (2012);
Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo, 456 Phil. 560, 565-566 (2003).
38. See Bartolome v. Basilio, supra note 1, at 218.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com