Notarial Practice

8. PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, A.C. No. 6655

Complainant,

ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA,Respondent.

Facts:

Pacita Caalim-Verzonillafiled a complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a public document and evading the payment of
correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.
It was alleged that respondent prepared and notarized two deeds of extrajudicial settlement of the estate of deceased Lope Caalim with Sale.
The first deed2 was for a consideration of P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lopes surviving spouse, CaridadTabarrejos, and her children
(complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and MariviniaCaalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga.
The second deed3was for a consideration of P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of the same parties as the first deed.
The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in the notarial portion.
Complainant further alleges that the two deeds were not presented to any of them and they came to know of their existence only recently.
Lastly, complainant alleges that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to annul a previously simulated deed of sale purportedly executed by Lope in favor of the
spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga.
Said deed was likewise a complete nullity because at that time Shirley Mipanga was only sixteen years old and still single.
In his comment,respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any
irregularity in their execution.
He narrates that the vendors, Caridad, Virginia, and Pacita (complainant) and Marivinia as well as the vendee, Shirley Mipanga were there as well as the two attesting witnesses
when he notarized the said documents.
The first document was a sale of subject property for a consideration of P1,000,000.00.
Respondent adds that they had disagreement as to who will shoulder the paymentof taxes over the property.
Later, the parties visited respondent at his house and pleaded with him to prepare the second deed with the reduced selling price.
Movedby his humane and compassionate disposition, respondent gave in to the parties-plea. In the presence of all the heirs, the vendees and the instrumental witnesses,
respondent prepared and notarized the second deed providing for the lowerconsideration of only P250,000.00

IBP

found respondent administratively liable on account of his indispensable participation in an act designed to defraud the government.
He recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months and
that his notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked and that respondent be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Respondent did not offer any tenable defense to justify his actions. As a notary,it was his responsibility to ensure that the solemnities of the act of notarization were followed. As a lawyer,it
was likewise incumbent upon him that the document he drafted and subsequently notarized was neither unlawful nor fraudulent. Commissioner Fernando ruled that respondent failed on
both counts since he drafted a document that reflected an untruthful consideration that served to reduce unlawfully the tax due to the government. Then he completed the act by likewise
notarizing and thus converting the document into a public document.

IBP Board of Governors

 RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents violation of Notarial Law and for his
participation to a transaction that effectively defrauded the government,
Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and
SUSPENSION of his Notarial Commission for two (2) years

SUPREME COURT

Respondent did not deny preparing and notarizing the subject deeds. He avers that the true consideration for the transaction is P1,000,000 as allegedly agreed upon by the
parties when they appeared before him for the preparation of the first document as well as the notarization thereof. He then claimed to have been "moved by his humane and
compassionate disposition" when he acceded to the parties plea that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a lower consideration of P250,000 in order to reduce the
corresponding tax liability

As to the charge of falsification, the Court finds that the documents annexed to the present complaint are insufficient for us to conclude that the subject deeds were indeed falsified
and absolutely simulated.

Moreover, while respondents duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon
him to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation.16Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in
fact proscribes notaries public from performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate
fee specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;

In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite knowledge of its illegal purpose. His purported desire to accommodate the request of his client will not
absolve respondent who, as a member of the legal profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to the importunings of his clients. Respondent should have been
more prudent and remained steadfast in his solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.17 As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal
profession.
Respondent admitted having given the second deed the same document number, page number and book number as in the first deed, reasoning that the second deed was
intended to supplant and cancel the first deed. He therefore knowingly violated Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004Rules on Notarial Practice, in furtherance of his clients intention of
concealing the actual purchase price so as to avoid paying the taxes rightly due to the Government.

ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
Notarial Practice

7. ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO vs. ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL

FACTS:
 An administrative Complaint was filed by Atty. Florita S. Linco (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for
disciplinary action for his failure to perform his duty as a notary public, which resulted in the violation of their rights over their property.
Complainant is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco (Atty. Linco), the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements in Cainta.
Complainant alleged that Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal (respondent), a notary public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation allegedly executed by her
husband in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor.
She also stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (Toledo), mother of the donee, allegedly personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003, despite the
fact that complainants husband died on July 29, 2003
She claimed that the respondents connivance with Toledo was a violative of her& her childrens rights and a violation of law.
In his answer, respondent admitted that he notarized a deed of donation in favour of Alexander Linco as represented by Gina Toledo.
Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco through an emissary in the person of JueleAlgodonand he was informed that Atty. Linco
was sick and wanted to discuss something with him.
Respondent pointed out that Atty. Linco appeared to be physically weak and sickly, but was articulate and in full control of his faculties. Atty. Linco showed him a
deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the donation. Respondent claimed that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the deed of donation in
his presence along with the witnesses.
However, respondent explained that since he had no idea that he would be notarizing a document, he did not bring his notarial book and seal with him. Thus, he
instead told Algodon and Toledo to bring to his office the signed deed of donation anytime at their convenience so that he could formally notarize and acknowledge
the same.
On July 30, 2003, respondent claimed that Toledo and Algodon went to his law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had passed away on July 29, 2003.
Respondent was then asked to notarize the deed of donation.
During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7, 2005, it was established that indeed the deed of donation was presented to respondent on July 8,
2003.7 Respondent, likewise, admitted that while he was not the one who prepared the deed of donation, he, however, performed the notarization of the deed of
donation only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died
Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation, which was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003

IBP Ruling and Recommendation

found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, and
that his notarial commission be revoked and he be disqualified from re-appointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years.

The IBP-CBD observed that respondent wanted it to appear that because the donor appeared before him and signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, it was just
ministerial duty on his part to notarize the deed of donation on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died. The IBP-CBD pointed out that respondent should know that the
parties who signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, binds only the signatories to the deed and it was not yet a public instrument. Moreover, since the deed of donation
was notarized only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died, the acknowledgement portion of the said deed of donation where respondent acknowledged that Atty.
Linco "personally came and appeared before me" is false. This act of respondent is also violative of the Attorney's Oath "to obey the laws" and "do no falsehood."
The IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

SUPREME COURT
 There is no question as to respondent's guilt. The records sufficiently established that Atty. Linco was already dead when respondent notarized the deed of
donation on July 30, 2003. Respondent likewise admitted that he knew that Atty. Linco died a day before he notarized the deed of donation. We take note that
respondent notarized the document after the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he was allegedly asked to notarize the deed of donation. The
sufficient lapse of time from the time he last saw Atty. Linco should have put him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with the notarization of the deed of
donation.
However, respondent chose to ignore the basics of notarial procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a colleague. The fact that respondent
previously appeared before him in person does not justify his act of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day the
document was notarized.
In the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation, respondent attested that Atty. Lincopersonally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet
obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003. Clearly, respondent made a false
statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.
We will reiterate that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent 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.
Time and again, we have repeatedly reminded notaries public of the importance attached to the act of notarization. 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. Notarization converts a private document into
a public document; thus, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. 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

Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainant's rights over the property subject of the donation but also in
undermining the integrity of a notary public. He should, therefore, be held liable for his acts, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL, is REVOKED.

He is DISQUALIFIEDfrom reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years.

He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately.
6. JOFEL P. LEGASPI v. ATTYS. RAMON LANDRITO and MAGNO TORIBIO

FACTS

Jofel P. Legaspi charged Attys. Ramon Landrito and MagnoToribio with Grave Misconduct, Grave Dishonesty, Use of Falsified Document and Conduct
Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar, in relation to the alleged falsification of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).

The same SPA was also used as the basis of an Affidavit-Complaint for Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document filed against respondents
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of TreceMartires City, Cavite.

According to Legaspi, Atty. Landrito filed an ejectment suit with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of TreceMartires City, on behalf of
Pedrito Aragon purportedly in representation of his co-heirs, Madonna Aragon Aristorenas, Jesusa Aragon, Rafael Aragon, and Danilo Aragon.

Atty. Landrito allegedly made it appear that Pedrito Aragon was duly authorized to file the suit and to represent his co-heirs therein by preparing the falsified SPA.

However, Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon could not have executed the SPA as they were then already residing in the United States of America and
Canada, respectively. Besides, they did not return to the Philippines in 2005 as certified by the Bureau of Immigration and are not even Filipino citizens.

Atty. Landrito allegedly used the falsified SPA as evidence in the DARAB case with full knowledge of its falsity.
 Atty. Toribio, for his part, allegedly notarized the SPA without requiring the presence of the principals, and verifying whether the said document was really executed
by the latter and that the same was their free and voluntary act and deed.

IBP

found Atty. Toribio guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the rules on notarial practice and

recommending the penalty of six months suspension both as a lawyer and a notary public.

The IBP, however, recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. Landrito for lack of merit.

It is clear from the records that Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon could not have personally appeared before Atty. Toribio on December 27, 2005 as they were not in
the Philippines on this date or thereabouts. A certification 8 dated January 19, 2006 was issued by the Bureau of Immigration to the effect that as of January 19, 2006,
Madonna Aristorenas had traveled to the country only between December 15 and 30, 2003. Another certification 9 of even date issued by the bureau states that as of
January 19, 2006, Rafael Aragon had traveled to the Philippines only from December 15 to 27, 2003.

Moreover, in her Affidavit10 acknowledged before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Chicago, Illinois, USA, on February 22, 2006, Madonna Aristorenas stated that
she signed the SPA in favor of her brother, PedritoAragon, in her residence in the United States. Similarly, in his Affidavit acknowledged before the Consulate General of the
Philippines in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on February 23, 2006, Rafael Aragon stated that he signed the SPA in his residence in Canada.

SUPREME COURT (walang BOG direct ruling agad)

Clearly, although the SPA dated December 27, 2005 was voluntarily executed by the principals, it was notarized in their absence in clear violation of the rules on notarial
practice.

It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one,
making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.

Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with
the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined.

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.

Considering that, as noted by the IBP, Atty. Toribio is already of retirement age, a degree of compassion and leniency is also proper.
As regards Atty. Landrito, we agree with the IBP that there is no indication that he participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA. There is also no basis to
conclude that he knew of the defect in the notarization of the SPA and introduced the same in evidence with the knowledge of its deficiency. The case against him should
be dismissed accordingly.

Atty. Magno V. Toribiois hereby found GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice.

He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months,

His notarial commission, if any, is also hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months.

The case against Atty. Ramon P. Landritois hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
5. RIZALINA L. GEMINA vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA,
Facts:

Allegedly, Complainant is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land located in Laoag City.
These parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in connivance with the respondent.
The documents pertaining to the transactions over these lands were notarized by the respondent either without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures.

The documents the complainant referred to were:

1. Waiver of Rights & Interest;

2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee;
3. Deed of Adjudication&Sale;
4. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and 5. Deed of Absolute Sale.

In his Comments and Compliance, the respondent admitted the complainants allegations on the notarization of the subject documents, but denied any participation in the sale and
transfer of the lands covered by the documents.
He claimed that it was his secretary who prepared and drafted the documents.
He claimed that his only participation was to affix his signature on the documents.
He apologized and committed himself not to repeat these misdeeds.

IBP

recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, finding that no documentary evidence was presented to support the same.
She insisted that respondent notarized documents without the appearance before him of the persons who executed the same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was also
presented.
An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved and that as an officer of the court he has performed
his duties in accordance with his oath.
The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence

IBP Board of Governors

The report was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

SUPREME COURT

The court disagree with the findings of Commissioner Maala for the following reasons:

First, the IBP cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the land. It is not within its authority to determine whether the complainant has a legal right to
the properties involved in the transactions and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of law and facts
regarding the parties legal rights to a dispute.

Second, from the respondents own admissions, it cannot be doubted that he is guilty of the charges against him. His admissions show that he had notarized documents without reading
them and without ascertainingwhat the documents purported to be. He had completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial Register. This eventually
resulted in inaccuracies in the entry of the notarial acts in his Notarial Register.
 The IBP resolution, based wholly on Commissioner Maalas Report and Recommendation, totally missed and disregarded the submitted evidence and the respondents testimony
during the hearing of the complaint.
The IBP apparently had treated the respondent with exceptional leniency. The respondents age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the serious lapses he
committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public.
The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entries and his failure to enter the documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public. He cannot
escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.
A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or
allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to 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, moreover, require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain
from committing any dereliction or any act which may serve as cause for the revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondents failure to make the proper entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the
presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the
revocation of a lawyers commission as a notary public.

Atty. Isidro S. Madamba GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility

Orders the REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if still existing

He is further SUSPENDED indefinitely from reappointment as a Notary Public.

Considering the seriousness of his violations, he deserves disbarment from the practice of law but taking into account his old age and sickness, the Court, for humanitarian reasons, hereby
orders his SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
4. JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA

FACTS

In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial
bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority.
Hence, she wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain documents
notarized by him had been reaching her office.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato

Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)

recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and
that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years.
The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised
by Atty. Quintana to be without merit.

The OBC cited Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2)
years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules
of Court.

The OBC stated that under the rule, respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which was in
Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao only. But definitely he could not extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province
of Cotabato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan were not part of either Cotabato City or Province of Maguindanao but part of the province
of North Cotabato.
Thus, the claim of respondent that he could exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City was part of the province of Cotabato was absolutely
devoid of merit.
Further, per the OBC, evidence on record also showed that there were several documents which the respondents wife had herself notarized. Respondent justified that he could
not be blamed for the act of his wifeas he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to him, he even scolded and told his wife not to do it
anymore as it would affect his profession.
 The OBC cited the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 where the Court held, thus:

A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to (his) secretaries

The OBC stated that a person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was
his wifes act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife,
who acts as his secretary.

The OBC stressed further that Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

Supreme Court

adopted the findings of the OBC.

However, it found the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years
more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his offenses.

The Court held that after a careful review of the records and evidence, there was no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts:

(1) he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public;
(2) he performed notarial acts with an expired commission;
(3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and
(4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.

The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not to be taken lightly, the Court stated. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the
lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood, the Court added. Finally, the Court
stressed that Atty. Quintana was personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his
wife, said the Court. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law, it concluded.

The Court furthermore held that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties
imbued with public interest. 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. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts,
and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof, the Court stated.
The notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED

DISQUALIFIEDfrom being commissioned as notary public for a period oftwo (2) years.

He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately