THE LAWYER AS NOTARY PUBLIC

#3 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs. ARGUELLES

FACTS:

This case involves an action for the annulment of a transfer certificate of title (TCT) over a parcel of land on the
basis of an allegedly falsified deed of sale transferring title over the property.

The Arguelles brothers entered into a conditional sale of their land to Edgardo Trinidad and his wife with the terms
of sale that they will pay a down payment and that they will pay the balance by monthly installments.

With a deed of sale in their favor, the Trinidads eventually had the land titled in their names and applied with
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) for a loan, offering the land as collateral. Metrobank accepted
the land as collateral and lent them money and several more loans all secured by the said land.

The Arguelleses filed a complaint against the Trinidads with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite 1 for the
cancellation of the title in the latters names since they deny having executed a deed of sale in favor of the Trinidads.
Subsequently, the complaint was amended to implead Metrobank and sought the cancellation of the real estate
mortgages over the property in its favor.

They alleged that they entrusted their owners duplicate copy of title to Atty. Alejandro Saulog, Sr., who assisted the
parties in executing a conditional sale covering the land. The Trinidads used a fictitious deed of sale, notarized by a
certain Atty. Saulog, Jr. to effect the transfer of title in their names.

In answer, the Trinidads claimed that they paid for the land by installments, completing the payment on June 24,
1986 with the result that the Arguelleses executed the deed of sale in their favor. For its part, Metrobank filed a
cross-claim against the Trinidads for litigation expenses, alleging that the Trinidads were answerable for such
expenses under the mortgage contracts.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Arguelleses and cancelled both the title in the name of the Trinidads and the
mortgages in Metrobanks favor. The primordial issue, said the RTC, was whether or not the Trinidads paid the
balance of the agreed purchase price by installments. It found that they did not since they could not present proof of
the payments they supposedly made. When asked on cross-examination, Marilou Trinidad could not even remember
when they made those installment payments.

The defendants (now petitioners) appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA affirmed that of the RTC. As for Metrobank, the CA held that it was not a mortgagee in good faith as it
appears that Metrobank compelled the Trinidads to acquire title over the property before the initial loan could be
approved.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the deed of sale, which the Arguelleses supposedly executed and that
the Trinidads used for the transfer of the property in their names, was a falsified document.

RULING:
The key question in this is the authenticity of the deed of sale that the Arguelleses supposedly executed in favor of
the Trinidads and that the latter used in transferring the property title in their names.

One of the reasons why the courts below concluded that the subject deed of sale is not authentic is that the notary
public who notarized the document could not recall if the Arguelleses personally appeared and signed the deed of
sale before him.

Both the RTC and the CA held that the presumption of regularity of a public document did not attach to the subject
deed of sale, given that the notary public failed to establish the authenticity of the signatures on it. He could not
remember if the Arguelleses, present in court as he testified, were the same persons who appeared and
acknowledged the document before him.

But it is too much to expect a notary public who had but a brief time with the Arguelleses during the notarial
ceremony to remember their faces 12 years later. What matters is the lawyers testimony respecting the ritual of
notarization that he invariably followed. He gave unbending assurance that he ascertained the identities of the parties
to documents who appeared before him, including the Arguelleses, by requiring them to show documentary proofs
of the same and to sign the documents in his presence.

Besides, the theory of the Arguelleses is that it was Atty. Saulog, Jr. who facilitated the preparation of the falsified
deed of sale for the benefit of the Trinidads. But, if this were so, it would have made more sense for Atty. Saulog, Jr.
to testify in defense of the genuineness of the transaction by claiming that he recalled the faces of those who
appeared before him 12 years ago, and that they were no other than the Arguelleses.

The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals as well as the decision of the
Regional Trial Court and DENIED the action for the annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title and of the real estate
mortgages entered into by the Trinidad spouses and Metrobank and the cross-claim of Metrobank.

#4 Tenoso vs. Echanez

FACTS: Respondent was engaged in practice as a notary public in Cordon, Isabela without having been
commissioned by the RTC of Isabela. This alleged act violates RULE III of the 2004 rules on notarial practice. The
complainant attached several documents in her pleading to support her allegations.

Respondent denied the allegations and he said that he never notarized any documents or pleadings and he claimed
that somebody might have forged his signature.

The investigating commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months and disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for violating Canon 1 Rule
1.01 and Canon 10 Rule 10.01.

IBP board of Governors affirmed the findings of the Investigating commissioner but increased the penalty of
suspension to one year.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct, deceit and falsehood in violating Rules on
notarial practice and hence violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: the court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes
substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts and to the nations and
takes part in one of the most important functions to assist in the administration of justice.
 The duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Notarization
is not a routinary meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it
admissible in evidence.

In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigant, courts, other lawyers and
the general public to the perils of ordinary document posing as public instrument and hence he violated Canon 10
Rule 10.01 which mandates that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the courts to be mislead.

Further, in notarizing a document without being commissioned as a notary public, respondent not only
violated the rules on notary practice but he also violated Canon 1 Rule 1.01. His act of notarizing a document
without being commissioned as notary public constitute an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It is
unlawful because he has no authority to notarize a document because he is not commissioned as a notary public and
it also constitute dishonesty and deceit on his part for making it appear to the public that he can notarize a document
well in fact he cannot.

The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years and disqualify him from being
commissioned as a notary public for two years.

#5 BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, v. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.,

Facts:

Before the SC is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile against
respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.

The Facts of the case are not disputed

Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve the case instead of referring it
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa
and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife.
Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act as per Section 3( c), Rule IV of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as follows:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or

consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit
to show their valid identification cards.

Issue:
1. W/N Atty. Revilla is allowed to notarize the complaint-affidavit by his relatives within the 4th civil degree
of affinity.
2. W/N he be liable for not asking for the Identification card before he notarize.
Ruling:

1. No. Atty. Revilla, Jr.s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil
degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him
from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or
principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the
document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the
affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate6 at the
bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid
until December 31, 2012.

He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

2. No, On the second issue, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public
knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards.

This rule is supported by the definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity;

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is
his wifes sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
knows the three affiants personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid
identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat"
of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that he knows the three affiants
personally.7 Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-
affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to the
second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.

Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or
any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, 8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Atty. Quirino P. Revilla,
Jr., is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any
notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a period of three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is
further DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has lapsed.

#6 WILBERTO C. TALISIC vs. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN

Facts:
Wilberto C. Talisic (Wilberto) instituted an administrative complainant against Atty. Primo R. Rinen
(Atty. Rinen), charging the latter with falsification of an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale which allowed the
transfer of a parcel of land formerly owned by Wilberto's mother to Spouses Durante.While Wilberto believed that
his fathers signature on the deed was authentic, his and his siblings supposed signatures were merely forged.
Wilberto also pointed out that even his name was erroneously indicated in the deed as "Wilfredo".
 For his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained that it was only on April 7, 1994
that he came to know of the transaction between the Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when they approached him in
his office as the then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Real, Quezon, to have the subject deed prepared
and notarized. His clerk of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the parties to his office for the
administration of oath. The deed contained his certification that at the time of the documents execution, "no notary
public was available to expedite the transaction of the parties."

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rinen committed a violation against the rules on notarial practice.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly
signed the subject document and whom, as he claimed, appeared before him on April 7, 1994. Such failure was
further shown by the fact that the pertinent details of the community tax certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as
proof of their identity, remained unspecified in the subject deeds acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there was a
failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to exercise the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public ex-
officio.The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court judge during the time that he administered the oath for the subject
deed did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned
notaries public. He also could not have simply relied on his clerk of court to perform the responsibilities attached to
his function, especially as it pertained to ensuring that the parties to the document were then present, performing an
act that was of their own free will and deed.

Notaries 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 public instruments would be undermined.

#7 MELANIO S. SALITA, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE

The Facts

Salita applied for a loan from one Jocelyn Rodriguez in the amount of P50,000.00 and signed blank documents,
including an "incomplete" Promissory Note (PN).Subsequently, he restructured the loan and further prepared two
(2) Real Estate Mortgage Agreements, and a pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale covering the subject property as
collateral. Salita was able to pay his loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by
Rodriguez before Notary Public Buenaventura Melendres.

However, Rodriguez filed an ejectment complaint against Salita presenting the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale
and the two (2) REM instruments signed by the latter. Salita discovered that the Deed of Absolute Sale had already
been notarized by Atty. Salve and his Community Tax Certificate Numbers were allegedly falsified. Salita went on
to conclude that it appeared as if he had sold the subject property to Rodriguez and executed the same before Atty.
Salve. Aggrieved, Salita filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Rodriguez and Atty.
Salve. Salita likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve.

The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. On reconsideration, however, the IBP Board of
Governors recommended the suspension of Atty. Salves notarial commission for a period of three (3) months.

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable.

Ruling
Yes. 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

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. Having
failed to observe and show utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat, he must
now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an
irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal appearance of the persons executing the same
constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public. His notarial commission is hereby
REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

#8 Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon vs. Atty. Arturo Cefra

AC No. 5482 February 10, 2015

FACTS:

Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land covered by a TCT where Johnny, Alfonso,
Benita and complainants Jimmy and Juanita, complainants being the distant relatives of Atty. Cefra, are vendors
while Paran appeared as the buyer. Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed was falsified since they did not sign it
and alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. This was certified by the National Bureau of Investigation
discovering the signatures to be forged.

Thus the case, where Jimmy and Juanita initiated a disciplinary action against respondent questioning his
conduct as a lawyer and notary public.

The court required respondent to comment on the administrative complaint but he did not comply with the
courts order and continued refusal to file his comment that caused the court to order his arrest. After respondents
arrest only did he filed his comment.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

1. That Juanita and Jimmy were aware of the sale of the property and assisted in the preparation of the
document for the sale which included the deed of sale and the acknowledgement receipts for the payment.
2. That after sometimes, Parans relatives brought the document to Jimmy and Juanita and Johnnys house to
have it signed. The buyers relatives witnessed the Jimmy and Juanita sign it with Loejan signing the deed
in representation and full knowledge of Johnny, Alfonso and Benita who are not at the residence at the time
of signing the document.
3. That respondent notarized the document in good faith and allowed it on the basis of the his belief that this
was justified since Leojan needed the proceeds for the amputation of his mothers leg. Respondents
purpose is only to help the vendors-complainant legally and financially.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the conduct of respondent in notarizing the Deed violated the Notarial Law and the CPR.
2. Whether or not the act of respondent in disobeying the courts order constitute a violation of the CPR.

HELD:
 Respondent violated the Notarial Law and the CPR in notarizing a document without requiring the
presence of the affiants.

The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes
his or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her duty
under the law. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who
executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging
the document.

A document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who
are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents
of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined
from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to
them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.

Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true
agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized
documents.

Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita,
as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to
Atty. Cefra by Parans representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the
document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee. It is
possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be in the document submitted by the
vendee for notarization. In addition, the possibility of forgery became real.

Aside from Atty. Cefras violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

This canon requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes. He contumaciously delayed compliance with this courts order to file a Comment. The
court already required Atty. Cefra to comment on the Complaint lodged against him but he did not comply with this
order until he was arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment more than
seven years after this courts order. Atty. Cefras actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.

The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts.

Atty. Cefra should be penalized for this infraction. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES
him from being commissioned as a notary public.

#9 CARLITO ANG vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA

Facts:
Carlito Ang (Ang) filed a complaint against Atty James Joseph Gupana (Atty. Gupana) for alleged direct
participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who prepared and notarized an
Affidavit of Loss and a Deed of Absolute Sale. There was a land involved in the case. When Ang tried to transfer
the title to his name, he discovered that the title were cancelled and a new title was issued in favor of the
respondents client. Atty. Gupana is an Attorney-In-fact of his client. It was alleged that he forged the signature of
the seller. As to the Affidavit of Loss, it was alleged that it could not have been executed by the seller as she Died
three years prior to the execution of the said affidavit of loss. The investigating commissioner found that respondent
delegated the notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his signature. Atty.
Gupana claimed that this is only a diversionary tactic of the complainant due to the pending civil case regarding the
subject property.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Gupanas act of delegating his notarial function is punishable.
Held:
Yes. The Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he failed to
require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss. It is clear that the
party acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments
of instruments or documents. In the case at bar, the jurat of the Affidavit of Loss stated that Candelaria subscribed to
the affidavit before respondent on April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since
March 26, 1991. Hence, it is clear that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law. Indeed, respondent
averred in his position paper before the IBP that he did not in fact know Candelaria personally before, during and
after the notarization thus admitting that Candelaria was not present when he notarized the documents.
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may
only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Respondent is mandated to observe with utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary and to ascertain that the persons who signed the
documents are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein. In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents
brought to him for notarization, limiting his participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the
identities of the persons appearing before him, and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent
is liable for misconduct. He was suspended for one year and his notarial commission was revoked and disqualified
for reappointment.

#10 Atty Aurelio Angeles vs Atty Renato Bagay, AC 8103, December 3, 2014

Atty. Aurelio Angeles, Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan wrote a letter to the Hon. Remigio Escalada, Executive
Judge of RTC Bataan regarding the alleged notarization by Atty. Renato Bagay of 18 documents from March 13,
2008 to April 8, 2008 when he was out of the country.

These documents were forwarded to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer who knew that Renato
was in Mexico to attend a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico, and accompanied by affidavits of the persons who
executed the documents who all alleged that they did not see Renato notarize the documents but her secretary.

Verification with the Bureau of Immigration revealed that Renato was out of the country from March 13, 208 to
April 8, 2008. The judge indorsed the letter to the IBP Bataan, which in turn endorsed it to the IBP National Office.
It was then referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation and report. The IBP endorsed the letter to
the Office of the Bar Confidant in view of the manifestation by Atty. Angeles that his letter was not meant as a
complaint but merely to clarify the status of the documents allegedly notarized by Renato.
The Court then required Renato to comment. In his comment, Renato averred that it was his secretary who caused
the notarization of the documents without his knowledge and authority and he had already terminated her services.
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation and report, and only Renato submitted his position paper
in view of the manifestation of Atty. Angeles that he be excused from participating in the case. The Investigating
Commissioner recommended that Renato be suspended from the practice of law for two years, in view of his
admission that he employed an office secretary who had access to his office, his notarial seal and records without
proper training, thus he failed to live up to his obligation under the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP adopted the
recommendation of the Commissioner. Renato in his motion for reconsideration argued that his case should be
treated with leniency since he admitted and owned up to his shortcomings and it was done without wrong intention.
His case should be a case of simple negligence

Issue: whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country
constituted negligence.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Respondent admitted in his comment and motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were notarized under his
notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly constitutes negligence considering
that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary.

Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a

Notary Public refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules. A notary publics
secretary is obviously not commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public.

Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretarys act which he did not authorize. He is
responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his
secretary in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that his
secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence cannot be
countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence. There is an inescapable likelihood that
respondents flimsy excuse was a mere afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him could be a conscious act
of what his secretary did.

Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person who is commissioned as a notary public
takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by
passing the buck to his secretary.
As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent claims that for the 21 years that he has been
practicing law, he acted as a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only infraction. His
experience, however, should have placed him on guard and could have prevented possible violations of his notarial
duty. By his sheer negligence, 18 documents were notarized by an unauthorized person and the public was deceived.
Such prejudicial act towards the public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of revocation of notarial
commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years is appropriate.

Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly
affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function
of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.

Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public,
he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and
with his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize documents without any restraint.

Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into his office while he was away, were
clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. They expected that their documents would be
converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the notarization of their documents was a mere
sham and without any force and effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an
unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
three (3) months is in order.

Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility. It is a
privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have declared
on several occasions, 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 notary 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 its authenticity. Thus, notaries 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 public instruments would be undermined.

Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that the Court will not take lightly complaints of
unauthorized acts of notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by the public in our legal system
hang in the balance.

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ADOPTED with MODIFICATION.
Finding Atty. Renato C. Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the Court REVOKES his notarial
commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. The
Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months effective immediately, with a WARNING
that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely.

The respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine
when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Renato C. Bagays
personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.