SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5645. July 2, 2002]

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant, vs. ATTY.
MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This complaint for disbarment was filed in behalf of complainant
Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales by the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos for violation of Act No. 2711
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Ch. 11, otherwise know
as the Notarial Law, particularly Secs. 245 and 246 thereof.
In September 1990 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant
Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the Original
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot No. 1-B-4-H in her
name. The lot measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of
Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25 November 1990
Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked her brother
Manuel to return her title he refused.
On 22 October 1990 Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title
and presented the affidavit to the Register of Deeds of Manila.
On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her
title to the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5 September
1990. The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on 1
October 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No.
718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed
any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
On 3 September 1991 Rosalinda filed with the NBI a complaint for
falsification of public document against her brother Manuel. The NBI invited
respondent Atty. Ramos for questioning. The complaint alleged among others
that on 12 September 1991 Atty. Mario G. Ramos executed an affidavit before

the NBI admitting that when Manuel presented the purported Deed of Absolute
Sale to him for notarization, he (Atty. Ramos) found some defects in the
document and that complainant Rosalinda was not around. The NBI
Questioned Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's signature
appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of her genuine signature,
and found that the signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and her
genuine signatures were not written by one and the same person.
On 5 October 1992 the NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila with the recommendation that Manuel and Atty.
Ramos be prosecuted for Falsification of Public Document under Art. 172 in
relation to Art. 171 of The Revised Penal Code, and that Atty. Ramos be
additionally charged with violation of the Notarial Law.
The NBI also transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) photocopies of the NBI investigation
report and its annexes, and a verified complaint [1] for disbarment signed by
Rosalinda. The CBD received the records on 5 October 1992. On the same
date, the CBD through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez directed respondent
to submit an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Respondent admitted in his Answer [2] that he had affixed his signature on
the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter the document in his
Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted executing before the NBI on 12
September 1991 an affidavit regarding the matter. Respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint since according to him he only inadvertently signed
the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured
through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that
he simply relied on the assurances of Manuel that the document would not be
used for purposes other than a loan between brother and sister, and that he
affixed his signature thereon with utmost good faith and without intending to
obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
The CBD set the case for hearing on 3 March 2000, 28 April 2000, 16
June 2000 and 5 October 2000. Complainant never appeared. The records
show that the notices sent to her address at 1497 Fabie Street, Paco, Manila,
were returned unclaimed.[3]
On 26 January 2002 the IBP Board of Governors approved the report and
recommendation of the CBD through Commissioner Fernandez that the case

against respondent be dismissed in view of complainant's failure to prosecute

and for lack of evidence on record to substantiate the complaint. [4]The
Investigating Commissioner found that the notices sent to complainant were
returned unclaimed with the annotation "moved out," and that she did not
leave any forwarding address, and neither did she come to the CBD to inquire
about the status of her case. From these actuations, he concluded that
complainant had lost interest in the further prosecution of this case, [5] and so
recommended its dismissal.
We cannot wholly agree with the findings and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. It is clear from the pleadings before us that
respondent violated the Notarial Law in failing to register in his notarial book
the deed of absolute sale he notarized, which fact respondent readily admitted.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary
public. It requires him to keep a notarial register where he shall record all his
official acts as notary,[6] and specifies what information with regard to the
notarized document should be entered therein. [7] Failure to perform this duty
results in the revocation of his commission as notary public. [8]
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be
overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. [9] Notarization converts a
private document into a public document thus making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.[10] A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument.[11]
For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. [12] Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
[13]
Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein.[14] The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. [15]

The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the
necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized and
retain a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and
certification especially when it is a contract. [16] The notarial registry is a record
of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments
recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document or instrument
does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt
is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that
it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this
document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents,
the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is
tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when
in fact it was not.
We take note of respondent's admission in his Answer that he had affixed
his signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but he did not enter it in
his notarial registry. This is clearly in violation of the Notarial Law for which
he must be disciplined.
Respondent alleges that he merely signed the Deed of Absolute
Sale inadvertently and that his signature was procured through mistake, fraud,
undue influence or excusable negligence as he relied on the assurances of
Manuel A. Bernardo, a kababayan from Pampanga, that the document would
not be used for any illegal purpose.
We cannot honor, much less give credit to this allegation. That respondent
notarized the document out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a legitimate
excuse. It is appalling that respondent did away with the basics of notarial
procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and client. In
doing so, he displayed a decided lack of respect for the solemnity of an oath in
a notarial document. He also exhibited his clear ignorance of the importance of
the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the Notarial Law, he also
did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its nonobservance.
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of
the document under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of
evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be
acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which
should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such
documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery.

[17]

Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon

him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any.[18] Failing in this, he must accept the consequences
of his unwarranted actions.
From his admissions we find that Atty. Mario G. Ramos failed to exercise
the due diligence required of him in the performance of the duties of notary
public. We do not agree however that his negligence should merit disbarment,
which is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.Disbarment should
never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his serious
misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar. Removal from the
bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe - reprimand,
temporary suspension or fine - would accomplish the end desired. [19] Under the
circumstances, imposing sanctions decreed under the Notarial Law and
suspension from the practice of law would suffice.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial
Law, the commission of respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos as Notary Public, if
still existing, is REVOKED and thereafter Atty. Ramos should be
DISQUALIFIED from reappointment to the office of Notary Public.
Respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos is also SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately. He is DIRECTED
to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to enable it to determine
when his suspension shall have taken effect.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately
circularize this Decision for the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

On May 27, 1997, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the
land covered by OCT No. 4153, executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro
Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife. [5]

[A.C. No. 6294. November 17, 2004]

ATTY.

MINIANO
B.
DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs.
ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA, respondent.

ATTY.

RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In his Letter-Complaint for Disbarment filed before the Committee on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Atty.
Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, for
violating his oath as a notary public.

On December 9, 1997, Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance

of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by
respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of
Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document docketed as I.S. No. 98-16357 before
the Quezon City Prosecutors Office and in a disbarment case docketed as
Adm. Case No. 4963 against complainant.[6]
Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for
disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent
notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the transaction was
already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public. [7]

Complainant alleged that respondent notarized with unknown witnesses, a

fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in gross violation of
his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon City.[1]

The IBP then required the respondent to file his answer to the said
allegations.

Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C.

Marero last December 21, 1996, to finance and undertake the filing of a
Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy of
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4153, in the names of Sps. Pedro
Sumulong and Cirila Tapales before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City,
Branch 72. The court issued an Order approving the said petition on March 10,
1997.[2]

Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have to go

beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In notarial law, he
explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a document are the presence
of the parties and their presentation of their community tax certificate. As long
as these requirements are met, the documents may be notarized. Furthermore,
he adds, when he notarized the Deed of Sale, he had no way of knowing
whether the persons who appeared before him were the real owners of the land
or were merely poseurs.[8]

On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from Marero
and had the title transferred to him and his wife. OCT No. 4153 was then
cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 330000. [3]
The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs. Adoracion Losloso
and Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the title in the formers name at the
Assessors Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so
because the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo
Properties, Inc., under TCT No. N-107359.[4]

Thereafter, the parties were ordered to appear before the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline on July 31, 2001 and August 21, 2001, and required to
submit their position papers.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in its Report dated September
29, 2003, recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating Canon 5
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[9] The allegations with respect to
the prayer for disbarment were recommended for dismissal for insufficiency of
evidence. The Commissioner held that complainant failed to establish by
convincing proof that respondent had to be disbarred because of his notarial
negligence. The alleged failures of respondent did not indicate a clear intent to

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, according to the

Commissions Report.
Noteworthy, however, respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited
Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It appears that
there was negligence on respondents part which, in our view, is quite serious.
Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate the Notarial Law, [10] and our
rules regarding Notarial Practice. [11] Nor could we agree that, as recommended
by the IBP, he should only be reprimanded. At least his commission as Notary
Public should be revoked and for two years he should be disqualified from
being commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the
purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the
deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila
Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of
Sale when it was presented for notarization. The aforementioned
circumstances should have alerted respondent. Given the ease with which
community tax certificates are obtained these days, respondent should have
been more vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared
before him.
We have empathically stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It
must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is,
by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. [12]
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides,
...
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer
duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments
or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the
officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging
the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person

who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep
a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. [Emphasis ours.]
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated
therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to.
Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said documents as
the ones who executed the same.[13]
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any
illegal or immoral arrangements.[14] By affixing his notarial seal on the
instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document
into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the
world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they
are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed
the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the
instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they
voluntarily and freely executed the same. [15] As a lawyer commissioned to be a
notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with
faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat.[16] Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon
him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute
Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the same
constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala
GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He
is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to the Court
within five (5) days from such receipt. Further, he is ordered to SHOW
CAUSE why he should not be subject to disciplinary action as a member of
the Bar.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land as
well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar
Confidant. Let this Resolution be also made of record in the personal files of
the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

MANUEL L. LEE, A.C. No. 5281

Complainant,
-versusATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO,
Respondent.

The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before

respondent on June 30, 1965.[1] Complainant, however, pointed out that the
residence certificate[2] of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will
was dated January 5, 1962.[3] Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not
the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation [4] (containing his
purported genuine signature). Complainant averred that the signatures of his
deceased father in the will and in the deed of donation were in any way (sic)
entirely and diametrically opposed from (sic) one another in all angle[s]. [5]
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence
certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that their
signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from their respective
voters affidavits.

Promulgated:
February 12, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee
charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial
Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will
and testament.

Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was

on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives
Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). In this
connection, the certification of the chief of the archives division dated
September 19, 1999 stated:
Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an
AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June
30, 1965 and is available in this Office[s] files.[6]

In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent

Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious
will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the
purported witnesses to its execution.

Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the

complaint against him contained false allegations: (1) that complainant was a
son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the will in question was fake
and spurious. He alleged that complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente
Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually
notarized by respondent per affidavit[7] of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of
Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by the joint affidavit [8] of the children of
Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. xxx. [9]

In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate
to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to
Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.

Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass
him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office
of the Ombudsman did not prosper.

Respondent did not dispute complainants contention that no copy of

the will was on file in the archives division of the NCCA. He claimed that no
copy of the contested will could be found there because none was filed.

A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities

prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to
take effect after his death.[15] A will may either be notarial or holographic.

Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause of

action against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action for the
declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the inheritance.

The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the
execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of
wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills
and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.[16]

In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.[10]
In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of
violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the
Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement of
legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 [11] and Rule 1.01[12] of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).[13] Thus, the investigating commissioner of
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of
respondent for a period of three months.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285
dated May 26, 2006, resolved:

[T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents failure to
comply with the laws in the discharge of his function as a notary
public, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for one year and Respondents notarial commission
is Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public
for two (2) years.[14]
We affirm with modification.

A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to

be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should
be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence
of the testator and of one another.[17]
The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and
Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. [18] This is
in consonance with the rule that acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity.
The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. [19] The importance of
this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other
requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate
provision.[20]
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually
declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed.
[21]
The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to
safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his
estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question
shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially
complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the
residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence
certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.

As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was

required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of
notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:[22]
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of
notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every
document acknowledged before him had presented the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to
enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such
certification.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded,
considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to
notarized documents.[23] A notary public, especially a lawyer,[24] is bound to
strictly observe these elementary requirements.
The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence
certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument:
Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of
[cedula] residence tax. Every contract, deed, or other
document acknowledged before a notary public shall have
certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their
proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from the
[cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary
public as a part of such certificate the number, place of issue,
and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as aforesaid. [25]
The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of the
Residence Tax Act[26] which stated:

exhibit an expired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply with the

requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act. As
much could be said of his failure to demand the exhibition of the residence
certificates of Noynay and Grajo.
On the issue of whether respondent was under the legal obligation to
furnish a copy of the notarized will to the archives division, Article 806
provides:
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witness. The notary public
shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file
another with the office of the Clerk of Court. (emphasis
supplied)
Respondents failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives division a copy
of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary action.
Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make
the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. The old
Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial
register, in chronological order:
1. nature of each instrument
acknowledged before him;

executed,

sworn

to,

or

2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the

instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;

When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act

acknowledges any document before a notary public xxx it shall
be the duty of such person xxx with whom such transaction is
had or business done, to require the exhibition of the residence
certificate showing payment of the residence taxes by such
person xxx.

4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the

instrument;

In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the

true and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued, as well as the
payment of residence taxes for the current year. By having allowed decedent to

7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the

substance of the instrument.[27]

5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;

6. give each entry a consecutive number; and

xxx xxx xxx

In an effort to prove that he had complied with the abovementioned
rule, respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entry and entered
instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented a photocopy of his
notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he presented a photocopy of a
certification[28] stating that the archives division had no copy of the affidavit of
Bartolome Ramirez.
A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible unless
it is shown that the original is unavailable. The proponent must first prove the
existence and cause of the unavailability of the original, [29] otherwise, the
evidence presented will not be admitted. Thus, the photocopy of respondents
notarial register was not admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution of
the will because it failed to comply with the requirements for the admissibility
of secondary evidence.
In the same vein, respondents attempt to controvert the certification
dated September 21, 1999[30] must fail. Not only did he present a mere
photocopy of the certification dated March 15, 2000; [31] its contents did not
squarely prove the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial register.
Notaries public must observe with utmost care[32] and utmost fidelity
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.
[33]

Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render

the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the
importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the
witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to
confirm its contents.[34] Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for
his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence
of his breach of duty.[35]
In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided:
Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions
of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the
proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the
revocation of his commission:

(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in
his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner
required by law.
xxx xxx xxx
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding
cedula certificates.[36]
These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for
violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20
(a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court [37] and Canon 1[38] and Rule 1.01[39] of the
CPR.
The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the
land.[40] For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to
which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of
justice.[41]
While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an
obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well
beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of the law, a
lawyer should moreover make himself an example for others to emulate.
[42]
Being a lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as
respect for the law is concerned.[43]
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. [44] A
breach of these conditions justifies disciplinary action against the erring
lawyer. A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding or
acknowledgment that he has engaged in professional misconduct. [45] These
sanctions meted out to errant lawyers include disbarment, suspension and
reprimand.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.
We have held in a number of cases that the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution [47] and should not be decreed if any punishment
less severe such as reprimand, suspension, or fine will accomplish the end
desired.[48] The rule then is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
[46]

misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court.[49]
Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of
the elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that he exercised his
duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regard to the provision of
existing law and had complied with the elementary formalities in the
performance of his duties xxx, we find that he acted very irresponsibly in
notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe
punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient
basis for the revocation of his commission [50] and his perpetual disqualification
to be commissioned as a notary public.[51]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found

guilty of professional misconduct. He violated (1) the Lawyers Oath; (2) Rule
138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the
provisions of the old Notarial Law.
Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED.Because he has
not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an
officer of the court, he is PERPETUALLYDISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public.
SUPREME COURT

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, as
well as made part of the personal records of respondent.

Manila
SECOND DIVISION

SO ORDERED.
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, A.C. No. 7781
- versus ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR.,

Respondent.
Promulgated: September 12, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R.

Dimaano, Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino,
Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged that on July 16, 2004,
respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of
the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister,
Zenaida V.L. Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures
in this document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the
document on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer; and (3)
their purported community tax certificates indicated in the document were not
theirs.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he
made it appear, among other things, that complainants personally came and
appeared before him and that they affixed their signatures on the document in
his presence. In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively
enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased
parents property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of
the document in question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He
explained that he notarized [the] document in good faith relying on the
representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the

community tax certificates appearing in the document were true and

correct. Navarro would not, according to respondent, lie to him having known,
and being neighbors of, each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed
liability for any damage or injury considering that the falsified document had
been revoked and canceled.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner
of the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), found the following as established: (1) the questioned
document bore the signatures and community tax certificates of, and purports
to have been executed by, complainants and Navarro; (2) respondent indeed
notarized the questioned document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did not
appear and acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4)
respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarros
representation that the signatures appearing and community tax certificates
were true and correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain if the purported
signatures of each of the complainants appearing in the document belonged to
them.

The Commission concluded that with respondents admission of

having notarized the document in question against the factual backdrop as thus
established, a clear case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had
been committed when he stated in the Acknowledgment that:
Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila,
personally came and appeared the above-named persons with
their respective Community Tax Certificates as follows:
xxxx
who are known to me to be the same persons who executed
the foregoing instrument and they acknowledge to me that the
same is their own free act and deed. x x x
For the stated infraction, the Commission recommended, conformably
with the Courts ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,[1] that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) year; that his notarial commission, if still
existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary
public for two (2) years. On September 28, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors

passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-147, adopting and approving the report and
recommendation of the Commission.
We agree with the recommendation of the Commission and the
premises holding it together. It bears reiterating that notaries public should
refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the
persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally
appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated
therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an
instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment
is made in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where
the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his
free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his
certificate shall so state.[2]
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the
document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that
the document is the partys free act or deed. [3] Furthermore, notaries public are
required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has
acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence
certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its
number, place, and date of issue as part of certification. [4] Rule II, Sec. 12 of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice[5] now requires a party to the instrument to
present competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12 provides:

Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of

Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voters
ID, Barangay certification, Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card,
senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seamans book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office
ID, certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled
Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development
certification [as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February
19, 2008]; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to
the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to
the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of
two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who each personally knows the individual
and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated
to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated
by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered
that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
execution.[6] A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic
requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public
on notorized documents will be eroded.

Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.The phrase

competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an
individual based on:

WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial

commission of respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if still existing,
is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt of a copy of this
Decision, with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act shall be
dealt with more severely.

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an

official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual, such as but not limited to, passport, drivers license,

Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as
well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this
Decision and be it entered into respondents personal record.

SO ORDERED.